The motion by the Minister of the Interior of which notice has just been given will be discussed on Wednesday until 6.30 p.m., on Thursday and on Friday morning until 12 o’clock. I might also inform the House that on Monday and Tuesday the Bills on the Order Paper will all be dealt with by the House.

*In addition, I move as an unopposed motion—

My colleague the Minister of Justice has to be in the Other Place at 11 o’clock.

Motion put and agreed to.

We made it clear yesterday at the second reading what our attitude was in regard to this Bill, which is contained in whole in clause 1. We moved an amendment at the second reading that the House should decline to pass the second reading of the Bill because the rights of the wife and of the children were not protected and should be protected. At this stage I wish to move the following amendment—

Provided that where a South African citizen domiciled outside the Republic, marries outside the Republic, and the wife marries in good faith, such marriage shall be valid and of full force and effect in respect of the wife and children born or conceived of such marriage.

You will appreciate, Sir, that this merely narrows the scope of the operation of the principle of the Bill.

Order! I regret I cannot accept the amendment, because it is destructive of the principle of the Bill as read a second time.

Sir, may I address you on a point of order? At the second reading of the Bill the principle was accepted that this could be extended to persons who are South African citizens but not domiciled in the Republic. That principle, in my submission, may be narrowed by this Committee. The principle is there. The principle is not that the rights of a wife marrying in good faith, or the rights of children born or conceived of that marriage, should be prejudiced. That is not the principle; the principle is that the parties should not get married and if they get married, then it is an unlawful marriage in this country. I would like to point out at the same time that in the Act as it now stands there is a provision that marriages solemnized in good faith by a marriage officer in the Republic of South Africa, with no false declaration on the part of the parties to the marriage, are deemed to be valid marriages in the Republic and the children are deemed to be legitimate. I submit that if that is the principle of the Act itself which we are here amending, this amendment will not in any way negative the principle of the Bill, if the principle is what the hon. the Minister of Justice stated it to be in his reply yesterday, that is to say, that the principle of the prohibition of mixed marriages is now being extended in this manner. If that is the principle, then in my submission this amendment cannot negative the principle. It merely provides that certain consequences flowing from the application of that principle, shall not in fact flow from it. That is my submission and I do hope. Sir, that you will be able to reconsider the ruling you have given.

Mr. Chairman, I should also like to address you on this point. The principle that we adopted yesterday was the principle that the provisions of section 1 (2) of the principal Act be extended also to persons of South African citizenship. The principles of section 1 (2) are absolutely without qualification, and therefore it would be improper at this stage to insert a qualification applying to citizens of South African birth or origin. As I stated at the beginning, the whole section must be read in such a manner that exactly the same conditions and qualifications will now apply to South African citizens not domiciled in the Republic as apply to those who were domiciled in the Republic. Consequently, Sir, I support your ruling that this amendment is out of order.

I now rule that the amendment cannot be allowed as it is destructive of the principle of the Bill as read a second time.

Sir, we will vote against this clause for the reason that the rights of a wife who is bona fide married and the rights of children born or conceived of such a marriage are prejudiced. I may point out that if this clause is passed in the form in which it is at present, then, as I have said before, we are making a mockery of the ceremony of marriage in a church and giving a citizen the right to desert the person whom he marries and who might fall within the purview of this measure, and then come back to the Republic and marry someone else. If that is what this is intended to do, we have no intention of voting for it.

The hon. the Minister by his argument to you, Sir, upon the question of the competency of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Durban (North), has made us more determined than ever to oppose this clause, because the hon. the Minister, in furtherance of his argument, said that the clause as it now stands is without qualification, and yesterday the argument advanced by the hon. the Minister and other members on his side was that this amendment was not necessary because the wife and the children would be protected. Our point is that if the wife and the children are not protected …

Order! The hon. member is now making a second-reading speech. The principle was accepted yesterday.

With respect, Sir, I am dealing with this particular clause. We are opposing the clause in the committee stage and we are going to vote against it and I am now explaining to the Committee why we are going to vote against it. We are more convinced than ever that we are right because of the remarks made by the Minister when he addressed you a few moments ago. We say to the Minister that if the arguments advanced yesterday by that side of the House were correct and the children and wives are protected, then there is no reason why the Minister should not be prepared to accept the amendment.

There is a difference in domicile.

Yes, I know. All we are trying to do is to protect the new class that the Minister is dealing with, where a male citizen domiciled elsewhere marries. All we want to do is to protect the children and the wife of that marriage. As I have said we will vote against this clause. Clause put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout and G. P. van den Berg.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell. Clause accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Sir, we are not going to object to this Bill being read a Third Time, in view of the fact that this is a consolidating measure and, furthermore, an amending measure to a very important Act, the War Veterans’ Pensions Act. We realize that this is an important piece of legislation on account of the fact that it provides additional privileges to those persons who served their country in the past during times of war. It is in recognition of those services that this Bill extends additional benefits, “additional” when compared with the Aged Persons Act, 1967. These benefits are jealously guarded by those who answered the call to serve their country in times of need. As war veterans they will now have additional benefits—such as qualifying for a pension at the age of 60, whereas an old age pensioner only qualifies for a pension at the age of 65. In certain circumstances a war veteran can qualify for a pension even if they are under 60 years of age—for instance, if for reasons of physical or mental disability they are unable to earn a living themselves. We also realize that the means test which is applied to persons qualifying for a war veterans’ pension is more generous when such a war veteran is over the age of 70. We also realize that a war veteran can augment his old age pension if he can qualify for a war veterans’ pension under the War Veterans’ Pensions Act. For Whites it is a question of receiving R8 per month more than an old age pensioner and R4 for Coloureds Indians and Chinese. So, Sir, you can understand that these concessions, made as an acknowledgement of the services these persons rendered to their country in times of need are justified and, consequently, also this legislation of which we are now going to take the Third Reading.

However, there is one important omission to which we on this side of the House feel ourselves justified to object. I refer to the exclusion of members of the Bantu race from the definition of “war veteran”. Since the original Act was passed, there have been amendments from time to time to this definition of “war veteran”. Fairly recently other groups were included within that definition. We on this side of the House have supported the extension of the definition of a war veteran. For instance, those white persons who performed full time duty in the 1906 Zulu Rebellion in Natal, are now acknowledged as war veterans. Persons who were classified as protesting burgers from September, 1914, to February, 1915, have been included in the definition of a war veteran. During 1967 further amendments were made which brought in the Chinese as a group in terms of the definition of a war veteran.

Surely the hon. the Minister can now give some undertaking to at least carry out an investigation to see whether it is not possible to include the one group, the Bantu group, who also served their country in time of need, who also answered the call to come forward. I think it is only just for us to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will not consider in consultation with his colleagues, the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and the Minister of Finance, whether it is not possible, at a later stage perhaps in this Session, to bring forward an amendment to include these people who we believe should be classified on the same basis as the other racial groups. We believe that it is no use using as an excuse the position as existing in 1941. Certain difficulties which might have arisen 27 years ago could now be overcome by consultation and investigation. At least I believe the hon. the Minister owes the House an assurance that he will further investigate the possibilities of including this one group that has been excluded from the privileges that are available to persons who have served their country in time of war and who are classified as war veterans. Surely, this group should now also receive that consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer to the Minister’s remarks which he made during the second reading of this Bill. I believe that when he made reference to the debate in 1941 possibly time has dulled his memory to a certain extent. There are certain factors to which I wish to refer, because I believe that they, too, could give a different impression of the events which took place when the legislation was introduced for the first time.

The hon. the Minister in his second-reading speech said that “die Bantoe doelbewus uitgelaat is deur die destydse Minister wat daarvoor verantwoordelik was, mnr. J. H. Hofmeyr”. Then the hon. the Minister went on to say that he was really continuing with the practice that has been followed by the United Party Government of that time. I believe that there is a little more to it than that. I want to refer to Hansard of the 5th May, 1941, in which is reported the second-reading debate of the War Pensions Bill (column 8126). The Minister of Finance, Mr. J. H. Hofmeyr, in introducing the second-reading debate, said this:

In the next column he said this:

Then the Minister went on and he said: “All that is in this Bill.” I have no wish to imply from this, when I refer to all war veterans, that it was the intention at that stage to include Bantu pensioners. I say that just for clarification.

In further discussion we find that the Rev. Miles-Cadman in column 8142 raised the question of war veterans and of the Bantu being defined as a war veteran. He said that he did not like the definition of a war veteran, and he quoted it. He said:

He protested against that. In his reply the Minister of Finance had this to say in column 8143:

Yes, but I think this discussion can also drag on for 15 years, I do not think I can allow the hon. member to proceed any further.

Mr. Speaker, may I just refer to the final recommendation then, because that is what I was leading up to?

I think the hon. member must seek another opportunity of doing so.

Mr. Speaker, I should also like to support my two colleagues on this side as far as this matter is concerned. In the past we often heard from the Government benches that one of the reasons why the Bantu had not been taken into consideration was that they were not fighting men. They were not armed men who could be used in combat. Theoretically that is quite correct, but what did in fact happen? At times they were unarmed in the front line, where they did excellent work. In many cases they were shot to pieces. I do not think the fact that they were not supposed to be fighting men is of such great importance.

As far as Whites, Indians and others are concerned, everyone who joined up and did service, they do in fact qualify, and quite rightly so. I want to assert that the Bantu is equally entitled to that in this case. I should like to elaborate on that. Experience during the last war has proved that 14 men are needed between each man in the front line and the base in order to keep the man in the front line going. Where can one now draw the line and say, “These are entitled to this and those are not?”

I want to make a further assertion here, namely that as far as the Whites are concerned, there is no difficulty, but the Bantu were needed desperately at that time, and we shall again need them desperately.

Order!

Just one minute please, Mr. Speaker. We want to plead with the Minister to take this matter into reconsideration, still during this Session, when the opportunity presents itself.

Order! The minute I gave the hon. member for completing his speech is up.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make this point. If we look at what is happening to-day in a modern war in Vietnam, we see that every living soul is in a hopeless plight. Where is the Minister going to draw the line in a case like that? I want to suggest that we take everybody who did their duty, whatever their colour, into consideration for the benefit of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the principle which has applied throughout in respect of veteran’s pensions is that only those who were armed, who actually participated actively in the war in the sense that they were members of armed units, qualify for veterans’ pensions. In this connection a concession has already been made to the Bantu in the sense that those who served in the auxiliary services qualify forex gratiagrants. If hon. members have any misgivings in this regard and want to know whether these grants are sufficient and whether they are being made in the right way, these are matters which they have to discuss with the Minister in charge, the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, and not with me. We cannot make provision for that in this Bill because if we were to do so we would be disturbing the principle according to which war veterans receive pensions. Then we would create serious problems for ourselves. If we were to disturb that criterion, namely that the man must have been armed and must have participated in a battle, we would create serious problems for ourselves in respect of the war veterans of the Anglo-Boer War as well as in respect of the protesting burghers of the 1914-'18 period.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The education programme embarked upon by the Department of Indian Affairs has reached the stage where provision must now be made for advanced technical training for Indians. There is an ever-growing demand for trained men and women to fill technical posts for which post-matriculation, but not necessarily university education, is required.

The demand has so far been met by instituting such courses at the M. L. Sultan Technical College in Durban but these courses are conducted in addition to numerous other courses of a lower technical and secondary grade offered at that college. With the development of the Indian education programme, and the increasing availability of secondary schools and the planned introduction of comprehensive schools (in which general and basic technical education on a pre-matriculation level will be co-ordinated) provision can now be made for institutions that will concentrate on advanced technical training and such teacher training as may be required. This Bill will fulfil that need. As hon. members will see from the Bill before the House, it is proposed to elevate the M. L. Sultan Technical College in Durban into a college for advanced technical education. This institution, as hon. members from Natal will know, has an outstanding history of service to the Indian community and it is a logical sequence of its development that from the part-time classes instituted in 1929 it has grown to an institution, which I suggest, quite naturally qualifies for the high status it will now be accorded through this measure. I think I should give hon. members a short summary of the history of the M. L. Sultan Technical College.

After a group of Indians in 1929 took the initiative in providing part-time classes up to Junior Certificate standard for Indians in Durban, the need proved so great that part-time classes were later also instituted at Clairwood, Mount Edgecombe, Stanger, Port Shepstone and Pietermaritzburg. Through the endeavours of the “Indian Technical Education Committee” which was founded in 1930, the Durban City Council in 1942 granted, for the erection of a technical college for Indians, the six acres of land in Durban on which the M. L. Sultan Technical College now stands. These efforts were stimulated by Mr. M. L. Sultan, an Indian leader and businessman who donated R35,000 towards the erection of a technical college for Indians. In the same year of 1942 the Government had appointed a committee to investigate requirements in regard to Indian education in general. The committee recommended the establishment of a technical college for Indians. This recommendation was accepted by the Government and in November of that year, namely 1942, the treasury made available a subsidy of R25,000 for the establishment of such a college.

Official recognition of the M. L. Sultan Technical College as an institution for higher education under the Higher Education Act of 1923 followed in 1946. Mr. M. L. Sultan donated a further R31,000 to the college, whilst the Municipality of Durban, apart from the land which it had donated, donated another R22,500 towards the erection of the buildings and contributions were later also made by the Pietermaritzburg and other Natal municipalities. Permanent divisions to the college were later established at Pietermaritzburg and at Stanger, whilst branches for the part-time classes are now active at Clairwood, Mount Edgecombe, Tongaat, Port Shepstone, Verulam and now also at Chatsworth. The phenomenal development of the M. L. Sultan Technical College is, I think, demonstrated by the fact that the sum of R800,000 has to date been spent on capital development. Approximately R370,000 of this amount was provided by the State, R112,000 by the M. L. Sultan Charitable and Education Trust, and the balance was contributed by the Indian community, commerce, industry and the municipalities of Durban and Pietermaritzburg.

In 1967, 1,579 full-time and 4,556 part-time students enrolled at the college, and at its divisions and branches elsewhere, making a total of 6,135. The full-time enrolment of 1,579, however, includes 896 students who are in fact following courses which are available at departmental secondary schools, and of the balance of 683 full-time students, 416 were receiving technical education on a level lower than matriculation standard. My Department has already taken steps to divert as from this year full-time secondary students to secondary schools, so that by 1971 the commerce and home craft day-school facilities at this college will no longer be necessary; and in regard to the full-time technical students facilities will remain at the division of the college until such time as training facilities for them can be established elsewhere. I want to mention here that the establishment of a technical college for the Transvaal is now also being investigated.

The comprehensive development of the M. L. Sultan Technical College is, however, I think, illustrated by the fact that in addition to the technical and the secondary courses I have mentioned the following advanced and other courses are already being conducted at the college: Department of Commerce: (1) Secretarial and office assistants, (2) National Commercial Diploma, (3) Commercial Teacher’s Diploma, (4) Various management courses, (5) Courses in Salesmanship, Shipping Procedure and Supervision, and (6) Chartered Institute of Secretaries. Then, under the Department of Technology: (1) Public Health Inspectors, (2) Medical Technologists (Intermediate), (3) National Technical Diploma, including Building and Engineering, (4) Industrial Tailoring, (5) Learner Draughtsman, and (6) Chemical Technician’s Diploma. Then under the Department of Homecrafts: (1) Hairdressing and Beauty Culture, (2) Nursery School Assistants, (3) National Domestic Science Teacher’s Diploma, (4) Public Health Nursing, and (5) Dressmaking Certificate. Then lastly, we have Physical Education: Specialist Courses for Teachers of Physical Education. Already there are indications that the following advanced courses will have to be offered in the very near future: Technical Teachers’ Training, Draughtsmen, Diploma courses in Commercial and Applied Art, National Diploma in Ceramics, National Diploma in Dress Design and Courses in Mechanized Accounting, and lastly, Music.

I do not think that this measure is contentious. I may mention as a matter of interest that before the passing of the Advanced Technical Education Act during last year, the M. L. Sultan Technical College, together with the four white colleges which in terms of that Act were established as colleges for advanced technical education, were the five recognized autonomous technical colleges in the Republic, and as such they were administered under the Higher Education Act of 1923. If this Bill is approved by this House, the M. L. Sultan Technical College and future colleges for advanced technical education will operate on the same basis as the colleges now administered under the Advanced Technical Education Act of 1967. Those hon. members who have studied the Bill before the House will see that it is practically word for word the same as the Advanced Technical Education Act which we passed last year.

Now the change of status of the M. L. Sultan Technical College as contemplated in this Bill will not affect the autonomy of the College in any way whatsoever. the College Council will retain its independence as governing and executive authority. In fact, the draft Bill was submitted to and considered by the present College Council of the M. L. Sultan Technical College, and the Council has fully accepted the Bill and supports it in every way. The provision in clause 8 that the Minister shall appoint at least half of the members of the Council is supported by the fact that the M. L. Sultan Technical College is now, and future colleges for advanced technical education will be, heavily subsidized by the Government. From 1963 to 1967 for example the amount of R1,069,000 was made available to the M. L. Sultan Technical College in the form of Government subsidies. Over the same period an amount of R185,000 was contributed by the Government towards buildings, ground maintenance and other facilities at the College. The Government is therefore, I think, entitled to substantial representation on the Council. This Bill was made available to the members of the S.A. Indian Council, which met in Cape Town this week, and they have fully supported this measure.

Sir, I regard this as a very important Bill. It is a step forward in the development of Indian education. The Bill contains certain features to which I should like to direct the attention of the House. We are very grateful to the hon. the Minister for sketching for us the historical background of the development of advanced technical education under his portfolio. It is quite true that in drafting this Bill we have drawn upon the experience of the Bill we passed last year on advanced technical education. That, of course, was a Bill for white students. But, Sir, it is not word for word the same, as the hon. the Minister has said. On the contrary, under this Bill the Minister retains a much stricter control over the development of the College than the hon. the Minister of National Education does in controlling the technical colleges for Whites and I think rightly so. They have not reached the same stage of development as the white technical colleges. You see, Sir, the white technical colleges to which the Minister referred in the historical background which he outlined here, have had a certain measure of autonomy. The Government at one stage, in 1955, restricted their autonomy and then last year, seeing the error of its ways, the Government came forward and restored that autonomy and gave them still greater autonomy.

Sir, this Bill contains certain features, as I have mentioned. The chief one, with which I agree, is the Minister’s powers. What is advanced technical education according to the definition clause? It is defined in clause 2 (2) (a); it is such education as the Minister shall approve. Like Humpty Dumpty, he says: “When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” I agree that the hon. the Minister should retain this control; I think it is necessary and I like the development on a comprehensive basis. This should be a comprehensive college. It is much better at this stage than attempting to establish separate institutions. But let us move forward a little, although I am naturally interested in the historical background and Mr. M. L. Sultan. Of course, the Indian community owes a great debt of gratitude to Mr. Sultan. But that does not concern the principle of the Bill. I am concerned not only with education in Natal, because the hon. the Minister has said that he is contemplating establishing a college in the Transvaal. I am concerned with the principle contained in the Bill at this second-reading stage. The Minister has scope for manoeuvre in this Bill. He can extend autonomy at his will, which I think is a very good thing. The municipalities have contributed liberally and they are well represented.

Sir, let us take a look at the principle of the Bill. The main principle of any Bill of this kind is contained in the constitution of the college council. Let us look at the constitution of the college council under clause 8. The Minister can nominate at least 50 per cent of the members of the Council. The Council is a body with from 15 to 30 members, so the hon. the Minister has the power to nominate from eight to 16 members at least. He may nominate more if he wishes. That gives him the power to which I have referred. Sir, a very interesting question arises here and it is this: Will it be a mixed council consisting of Whites and non-Whites? Presumably, looking at clause 8, it will be. May I ask the hon. the Minister whether that is the case? It is the case. I am very interested in that, because when I served as a member of the Commission on Separate University Education, hon. gentlemen on the Government side insisted, as is laid down in the Act, that in a university college for non-Whites we should have a council which would be white and an advisory council which would be non-white. Is that the position in the University College for Indians in Natal? There is a university college in Durban for Indians. Do I understand that the Indian members of that council are in an inferior position to the members of this technical college council? Here we are having what the best experts on education in South Africa, from the Afrikaans-language universities, advised. They said that we should have in any Bantu university college, or the college in the Cape or the Indian university college, a mixed council, but the majority of the commission advised against it. In terms of the law to-day the council must consist of members of one race group. The same is true of the senate. Sir, this is a step forward. One of the best authorities on education from an Afrikaans language university, in giving evidence, said this: “I am already a member of such a university council for non-Whites. How can they ever hope to conduct their affairs unless we sit with them?” I congratulate the hon. the Minister on having taken this forward step. Let us look a step further. What is the second item of importance after the university council? It is, of course, the board of studies. I think that must follow the council. Let us look at the board of studies. Under clause 9 we have the principal, two other members of the council and members nominated by the staff. Will that be a mixed body as well? Sir, we are taking an important step forward. We do not have Whites and non-Whites sitting as students in the same university college but we have Whites and non-Whites co-operating together in the direction of the affairs of this college. I think that is most important. Where does the Minister retain most control? I think the hon. the Minister will agree that it is under clause 30, because after the Bill has been passed by this House the hon. the Minister has the power under regulations to control the affairs of the college.

Well, Sir, we shall have the opportunity during the Committee Stage to discuss details. I want to thank you, Sir, for your indulgence in allowing me to refer to the main clauses containing the principles of the Bill. We welcome the Bill and we shall assist the Minister in the Committee Stage. It is true, as he has said, that he has followed, not word for word, but he has followed the principle of the Bill which we passed last year on advanced technical education. But he has retained a tighter hold, a better control, so that the development can take place as he gives more and more rein. We welcome the Bill.

This morning I once more listened attentively to the hon. member for Kensington. If I want to show my children a typical member of the United Party in the future, I shall always hold up the hon. member for Kensington as being one. This morning I listened attentively to his criticism in respect of this particular piece of legislation. It was typical of the United Party. If one has to make a summary of their criticism after having listened to them for an hour or two, one must come to the conclusion in one’s summary that the sum total of their criticism amounted to nothing. Similarly the sum-total of the hon. member’s criticism amounted to nothing. The criticism of the hon. member for Kensington was more or less the same as that which we had from the Opposition last year during the debate on the question of advanced education for Whites. Last year the hon. member for Kensington received replies to that criticism and now, after a period of one year, he simply came along with the same arguments.

In discussing and evaluating this Bill, one has to view it against a specific, historical perspective—on the one hand that of Indian education itself and on the other hand that of the history of the Indian in South Africa, particularly against the background of the reasons for the arrival of the Indian in this country, the relationship which existed between the governments of South Africa and India and the attitude of the Native population groups to the Indian. The history of the Indian in South Africa goes hand in hand with that of his education. Anybody who makes a study of this, will in the course of his study of the history of the Indian in South Africa come across a certain uncertainty as regards the Indian’s position in this country. For that reason he will be able to understand why merely a laborious growth can be detected in Indian education in South Africa. When analysing the whole situation, one will find that the fundamental cause for this is to be found in the British imperialistic policy of the previous century, one which centered round a policy of economic exploitation and integration. That policy has in fact been taken over in that form by, and finds an echo in, the policies of the United Party and the Progressive Party of to-day.

This Bill seeks to make provision for the establishment of colleges for advanced technical education for Indians, for the control, administration and regulation of those colleges and for matters incidental thereto. There are four aspects of this matter which emerge clearly and which cannot be argued away. The first of these is that the National Party is hereby restating its policy very clearly in respect of the Indian in South Africa. It is stating its policy very clearly and impartially. The second aspect which emerges is that this Government is hereby proving that Indian education in South Africa need not take a back seat to the system of education and the educational facilities and possibilities of any other population group. In the third place the Government is once more proving by means of this legislation that it is prepared to exploit for the benefit of the Indian every essential possibility which modern education can offer. In the fourth place this legislation serves as evidence of the willingness of the Government to organize Indian education in such a way that it will serve all the needs of the Indian population.

I am making these statements on the basis of two facts. When we look at education in the international sphere, it becomes very clear to us that there is an obvious trend in the Western countries—especially those countries with old, traditional systems of education—to plan tertiary education in such a way that a distinction is made between university training on the one hand and the training offered by technological institutions on the other hand. At ordinary universities we find that ordinary, basic research work is being conducted for the sake of promoting knowledge, whereas the technological institutions. as regards their entire constitution, have a more practical approach to technique and technology as such. In this connection I may refer you to the growth in education in Germany, Italy, Switzerland, the Netherlands, England as well as America. The second fact is that this Bill has been drafted with close regard to the experience gained by white educationists in the sphere of education for Whites. In the past there were the Hofmeyr and Cilliers reports. Both these reports pointed out that technical and vocational education had to be placed on a healthier basis in order to serve the country as a whole. Then there was the Mönnig report of 1964 in which the following comment appears on page 27—

And then, last but not least, there is the experience gained last year from the discussions in this House on the Advanced Technical Education Act. Therefore the statements I made earlier on in my speech are founded not only on the experience in the international sphere, but also on the experience gained by us in South Africa.

Physically this Bill is bound up with the M. L. Sultan College. Now I should like to refer in brief to the record of this institution on the basis of an article entitled “Tertiary Education and the M. L. Sultan Technical College” written by the principal of that college in the publication Fiat Lux of June, 1967—

If we take this history further, as the hon. the Minister did this morning, we see that fulltime classes were subsequently offered. In 1955 the college officially opened its own building. This led to the growth of secondary vocational education in the technical, commercial, home-craft and refreshment fields. But now this phase in the growth of the college has also drawn to a close in that the Indian Education Act makes full provision for ordinary secondary education. On reaching this stage courses are now being offered which had never been offered to Indians before, i.e. on tertiary level. In this way the institution could play the role of a true technical institution. In the meantime the stage had been reached where the development of secondary and vocational education could be left to the competent care of the Department of Indian Affairs. All tertiary education need not necessarily be full-time. Therefore the college will make provision for part-time courses, courses which will be offered for shorter or longer periods in a specific year. As a matter of fact, the necessary facilities to meet this need are already being introduced— inter alia, by the creation of a language laboratory, a medico-technological laboratory, a chemical laboratory, etc. As it becomes necessary, these facilities may be extended. Because provision in these spheres is now being made for the first time for the Indian, it is having this important consequence, i.e., new employment opportunities are opening up for them. Consequently it will now be possible to create a more equally balanced employment pattern for Indians. New courses may be introduced in accordance with the demand for them on the part of employers. Consequently I now want to appeal to employers to make use of the possibilities afforded by this college as well as of the students being trained there. Employers can do so by showing their interest, by being sympathetic and by making bursaries available to the college.

The various courses which are being offered there, have already been listed by the hon. the Minister. I should just like to make special reference to the courses in refreshment services—the training of Indians as waiters, chefs, etc. This is a course which is unique in South Africa. In addition this college has also played a part in adult education and will, as long as there is any demand, continue to provide classes for persons over the age of 18 years —classes in modern languages, commercial art, welding, woodwork, etc. Because these courses require highly specialized staff and equipment, this provision for training cannot readily be duplicated throughout the country. But through the college the necessary facilities will be provided in order to enable Indians throughout the country to attend them.

By offering these courses, and many which I have not even mentioned, the M. L. Sultan Technical College will be a dynamic, living institution which will meet the requirements of its community, as well as the requirements of trade and industry. The methods, actions and ideals of this Government in regard to not only the M. L. Sultan as such but Indian education as a whole, will not only be a consolation to the older generation of Indians who had to provide for Indian education under difficult circumstances, but will also be an assurance to the present and growing generation of Indians that their future education is ensured and that along with that their own heritage in South Africa will be perpetuated. All this is being made possible by dedicated officials and by a government that has the well-being of the Indians at heart.

I do not propose to follow in great detail the very profound speech of the hon. member for Rissik. I believe that some of his remarks were bordering on the extreme circumference of the scope of this particular Bill. But I want to come back to the Bill itself. There are two brief matters which I would like to raise with the hon. the Minister.

Before I do so I feel it fitting to pay tribute to the Indian community, particularly the large donors, for their generosity which enabled in the first instance the M. L. Sultan College to become the institution that it was. I believe that in many aspects of education the Indian people, particularly in Natal, have been exceedingly generous, to the point even of sacrifice. It is fitting, I believe, to pay tribute to that sacrifice.

There is a small point in clause 2 which I would like just to raise with the Minister. In connection with the part-time classes, the Minister indicated that the wording of this Bill was almost identical, but not quite, to the wording of the Advanced Technical Education Bill of last session, which dealt with colleges for Whites. But in so far as clause 2 (2) (a) (ii) is concerned and the reference to secondary and other education on a full or part-time basis, I want to say this. I appreciate the difference in regard to compulsory education. It is not my intention to raise that matter. I understand the situation there. But I know that in the implementation of the existing Act in so far as at least one technical college was concerned, there was a difficulty concerning the part-time students. The difficulty may have been due partly to the change-over in relation to the Department and to the Province. That I am not sure of. But there were certain students who found themselves unable to be enrolled because their classes fell below the higher level of education of Std. X. They found themselves unable to enrol at other institutions for equivalent courses. I would like the Minister to give the assurance that, if there is any change-over when this college assumes its advanced status, full consideration will be given to any part-time students who may just be there on a Saturday morning for an art class or some similar form of study, so that they are not left in the position of having no alternative tuition.

My hon. colleague from Kensington referred to the composition of the Council and he expressed his gratification at the Minister’s indication that it was the intention that this council should remain of a composition that comprised more than one racial group. We are very pleased to hear that, because we feel that it is in the interests of the college itself. I want to quote the opinion of one of the leading Indians in Durban in regard to the composition of the college council, merely to show that the Indian people themselves welcome the benefit of the assistance and the advice of the white members who are at present serving on that council. I want to quote from what Mr. H M. Rajab said, according to the report of the Commission of Inquiry into Improper Political Interference. Just to get the records straight, Mr. H. M. Rajab is a prominent Indian industrialist. He is a prominent member of the Indian community. He is a director of the Durban Chamber of Commerce, representing Indian merchants. He took his B.A. in 1935, and as a matter of interest, he was one of five Indians who had degrees at that time in the Republic. He is Vice-President of the Durban Art Gallery Association. He had this comment to make:

Then Mr. A. Bloomberg asked:

The answer:

This, I think, is most significant—

I feel that that reflects sincerely the opinion of the Indian people. We on this side of the House are very glad to receive the Minister’s assurance that this position is likely to remain for a good time to come.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank hon. members who have expressed their support of this Bill. There is not very much for me to deal with. I want to give the hon. member for Kensington the assurance that we have this mixed council at the moment at the M. L. Sultan College and we will go on with that mixed council, until such time as developments have taken place, but our aim eventually is to make it an all-Indian council. The advisory council established for the Indian College in Durban is an all-Indian advisory council and they are performing very good work.

The council itself is all-White?

The University Council is all-White but the Advisory Council is all-Indian.

Yes, that is the law.

That is right. Mr. Speaker, I particularly want to thank the hon. member for Rissik for the contribution that he has made to this debate. It may be academic, but at the same time I think it is a very useful speech, a very good speech to have on record. He is, I think, by way of being an expert on these educational matters, and I particularly want to welcome his support for this Bill.

Then the hon. member for Berea paid a tribute to Indian contributors in Natal, particularly to the M. L. Sultan College and to other educational institutions. I want to say that I identify myself with that tribute. I have made that tribute before, but I think this is an opportunity for me to say that our grateful thanks are due to those Indian men in Natal who have from time to time put their hands deep into their pockets and assisted the education of Indians in Natal. Finally I want to give the hon. member the assurance that full consideration will be given to part-time students at the M. L. Sultan College. It is one of our objects and one of the objects of the college, and I can give him that assurance that it will continue.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Precedence given to private members’ business.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

1. (a) that water must be regarded as a national asset which must be made available in the first place for primary use by humans and thereafter for animals;
2. (b) that water must be utilized in a manner which will promote balanced socioeconomic development and ensure the survival of rural towns; and
3. (c) that having satisfied the above requirements, water from Government water schemes must be made available firstly for primary use and the building up of fodder banks for the benefit of riparian and accessible farmers, before the planning of irrigation settlements is undertaken.

When drawing up this motion I bore in mind the fact that a commission with wide terms of reference had been nominated to investigate the entire question of water in our country. The commission was given very wide terms of reference which cover an extensive territory. Therefore I have confined myself solely to the question of the policy I want to ask the Government to pursue. Consequently my motion deals with the relevant principles, and it is a privilege for me to introduce this motion formally.

I should like to ask hon. members to read this motion in conjunction with the motion dealing with the withdrawal of agricultural land which I introduced here last year. Last year I spoke about how little land we had at our disposal, and mentioned that, particularly as regards agricultural land, we only had 15 million morgen. We are aware that we have to relinquish land for residential, industrial and mining purposes, as well as for recreation facilities and traffic purposes. We are aware that we have to relinquish some of the land. After all this has been said, we must bear in mind that we do not have much land left for agricultural and grazing purposes and that the water problem is greatly aggravated. We realize that water must also be made available for other purposes. But if the agricultural sector is expected to supply the country with the necessary foodstuffs, then it must be accepted that they can only do so if they are supplied with the necessary water. Without the necessary water the agriculturist can no more supply the country’s food requirements than he can till the mountain peaks or produce food in the desert.

We know that South Africa’s entire economic structure is supported on three pillars. These are mining, industrial development and agriculture. In addition we also have the auxiliary or service industries for the three main industries. We must distinguish between these three pillars, and I am mentioning this particularly because lately we have been hearing all the time that the agricultural sector utilizes approximately 80 per cent of our available water.

Before I go any further, Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister of Water Affairs, who has just entered, on his recent appointment. It is a singular honour for me to congratulate him on his first appearance in that capacity in the House. We entertain great expectations of both the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs and the Deputy Minister. I think it is the first time that the portfolios Water Affairs and Agriculture are being held by the same Minister. We know the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, we are acquainted with his ability, we know that he is sympathetic towards us. The people of South Africa entertain great expectations of the Minister and the Deputy Minister as far as tackling this extremely difficult problem is concerned. The people expect that it will be tackled with daring and courage.

I should now like to refer to the differences between our mining industry, the industrial sector and agriculture. From time to time the farming community are accused of utilizing such a great deal of water. I ask again: Does the population of South Africa expect our farming population, particularly in view of the growing shortage of food throughout the world owing to the population explosion, to supply us with an adequate supply of food if they do not always have sufficient water for agricultural purposes? The other sectors of the population must also take this problem into consideration. I think it is unreasonable to want to compare, on an economic level, what the various sectors in question can produce if they have the same quantity of water at their disposal to what the agricultural sector uses. First let me put the following point. As far as mining and industries are concerned, the water is being utilized. That water is available for re-utilization. In other words, they can manage with much less water, whereas water is, of course, used up in agriculture. Even though it is possible for us to economize, and we expect that this will be done, a great deal of water will, from the nature of the circumstances, be used up in agriculture. But what is more, mines can be taken to where the ore deposits are. It is true that mistakes were made in the past owing to incorrect planning, but it is a burden not only upon our water consumption but also on our means of transportation to transport ore and then to transport water to certain points. In other words, what one expects in regard to your development, taking into consideration the size of the ore deposits, is that planning will be such that the processing of the ore will also take place at those points, according to the circumstances. That is why I accept that the water must be brought to where the ore deposits are. But as far as the industries are concerned, they must go to the high rainfall regions, where water does not have to be transported to them; they can be moved to the water points.

It is different with agriculture. One cannot move one’s productive land to the water points. Nor can one move one’s available grazing to the high rainfall regions. One must bring one’s water to those points. It is essential that one makes these distinctions, i.e. that in agriculture one is inevitably compelled to bring the water to the points where it is needed by agriculture, both as far as your land and your grazing is concerned. In this respect we accept that the industry and the mines will receive part of your water, but we expect that it will be divided up, taking into consideration the circumstances of the country, so that one will be able to utilize the entire resources of one’s country. When we come to this division, as I said at the outset, then I do not want to talk to-day about our water supplies. I expect that those wide terms of reference which the commission has been given, will provide us with a great deal of information. I entertain great expectations of that commission. All I want to say is that we are aware of the fact that water in South Africa is extremely scarce, and that only 11 per cent of the land receives a rainfall of more than 30 inches, and that one-third of the country receives less than 10 inches of rain. Now we are in the position that we have to divide up the available water for our future development. There are certain basic principles which, in my opinion, we have to consider. I wonder, when we passed this Water Act almost at the end of the 1957 session whether we all realized how much power we were placing in the hands of the Minister of Water Affairs. The dominus fluminis,the right of dividing water, has been taken from the riparian owners and transferred to the State. In other words, here we have already accepted the first important principle, i.e. that we regard water as a national asset of the country. In that respect the power is to-day in the hands of the State to undertake the division. I think that we took the correct decision.

The position is that it is only along the East coast that we have mountain ranges and a high rainfall, and most of the water runs down into the Indian Ocean. There are only two rivers, the Vaal and the Orange Rivers, which, as a result of the natural formation of our soil, happen to flow in the other direction, through the dry areas. Australia and South Africa are very much alike in this respect, with only this difference that they do not have the privilege of a major river which flows down from the high rainfall regions through the dry areas, which we do have.

In this respect I must say that if it should happen that the State did not have the power to divide this great natural resource, our water, it would be possible, with these two great rivers which flow round the Orange Free State, to leave the Orange Free State to dry up and become as arid as a dry orange. But, on the other hand, if one undertakes proper planning, one can give the remaining part of the country its fair share through these two rivers so that in your planning you can regard South Africa as a whole and help South Africa as a whole by supplying it with the necessary water for the use of the entire country. I think that that should be our point of departure. How can we, with the water at our disposal, best serve South Africa as a whole so that one does not, for example, favour one part to the detriment of the other in our future planning? I have no doubt about our intellectual capacity and our planning. We are living in a scientific world and we are also living an era of planning. Many errors were made in the past, but we need not make the same errors in our future planning, although I am aware that future generations will probably view matters quite differently from the way we do. But we must plan to the best of our ability so as to see South Africa as a whole and to develop the country as a whole in the interests of the entire population.

That is why I say that the first idea is that the State should assume responsibility for the division of water, because it is a national asset. I do not think we differ from one another in regard to that matter. Secondly, if we make this division, we come up against this question: Who must enjoy preference? I say it is man, because man will flee to where the water is available, because man cannot live without water, and he will inevitably move to the water points, and then the other parts of the country will become depopulated. The same applies to animals. I firmly believe that most of the stock losses which we have suffered in South Africa over the years was as a result of a restricted water supply, where the animals had to be herded over large distances to water. Now I know that in various respects there are various views in regard to this matter and that it has been alleged that we should not supply certain parts of our country with water because it could have the effect of prejudicing grazing, and that drift-sands could cover the other sectors. In Australia one finds a desert where the rainfall is less than 5 inches per year; they have been supplying that region with water, and according to information received it has become a garden of Eden. No farmer would be so foolish, in these times in which we are living, to allow his veld to be trampled to such a degree, but we can also apply other measures in this respect. I say that it would be a pity if we go on in this way. Just look at the way things are going in the Kalahari. There are farmers who from time to time sink deeper boreholes and are always searching further afield for water. It is impossible for the subterranean water supply to last. There are two factors in particular which we have to take into consideration. The first is this. Many people think that a great deal of water flows to the sea, but the experts say: No, the average flow is only 8.6 per cent, and the subsidence of water is much less. What is more, Dr. Enselin causes one to feel even greater concern at the possibilities of supplementing subterranean water. He maintains that the chances are limited because the subterranean rock formations which are suitable for the storage of water are very few and of a limited nature. If this flow is so small and the subsidence is even smaller, particularly in certain areas, and one does not supplement the water supply in those areas by some other means, one must expect these supplies to become exhausted.

With this I am now proceeding to the second point namely the rural towns. The Opposition is so fond of talking about the depopulation of the rural areas. There was a time when the entire population of South Africa were farm-dwellers. They were land-owners and tenants. The father and the uncle and the brother and quite a few more all lived on the same farm. Later we find periods when those people were able to find other occupations in the towns and cities, and in this development process of South Africa the tenants on the farms moved to the towns. That was the first migration to take place. It is easy for hon. members of the Opposition to say that so many thousands of people have migrated to the cities over a certain period. What one finds to-day is that the man on the farm is either the owner of the farm or a farm-worker, but one does not to-day find the type of farm tenant whom we used to have on our farms. That was the first migration, as I have said, but we have now moved into a new phase. One finds that people have to move to the water points, and the outlying towns are to-day deplenishing our supply of subterranean water. Year after year they have to sink deeper boreholes in order to make a larger quantity of water available to the inhabitants. They cannot, as is the case with the farmer on a farm, merely pump out a few hundred gallons for drinking supply. It runs into hundreds of thousands. According to Dr. Enselin 640 million gallons of water are now being drawn from subterranean supplies. That was the position as far back as 1963. The State has now established means and given a degree of assistance, but we must introduce further auxiliary measures for the small rural towns. What is happening is that they have to impose water restrictions year after year. The demand is steadily increasing, with the result that deeper holes are being bored, and more water has to be drawn from the soil. It is clear that the State will have to step in and adopt measures in order to provide assistance if we are to prevent everybody from migrating to the water points. If one regards the rural towns as necessary to the country’s economy then the State will have to render more assistance to them than is at present being rendered. The population of the rural towns simply cannot manage to bear the heavy expenses and difficulties in regard to water provision. One is continually faced with the problem of water restrictions. Ask yourself the following question: If one is a retired farmer or if one wants to migrate on account of other circumstances then, in the first place, one would have to go and look for a place where you would be assured of a water supply, because in the case of man, just as in the case of animals, there is no life without water. That is why it is so imperative that this matter of the smaller towns should be given serious consideration with a view to more assistance than has up to now been made available.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to elaborate now on our more densely populated settlements; my time is almost up. I just want to point out that the establishment of fodder banks is an absolute imperative in the development process which we are going through to-day, particularly with a view to the serious droughts which we are experiencing periodically. Just as Escom supplies electricity to our farmers throughout the country, so I think that we should also bring water to farms by means of a pipeline system in order to make it possible for our farmers to establish their own fodder banks. This may perhaps be an expensive process but I do not think that there is a single farmer who will not be willing to make major financial contributions to that end. I want to say at once that I am not advocating that it should be made possible for the farmer to put 20 to 30 morgen under irrigation. because he will then begin to produce cash crops and it will be necessary for us to consider additional measures, such as the question of preventing the subdivision of land.

But. if we wish to deal with the drought conditions in future, we must give our attention to these matters and take the necessary steps. Sir, my time is up. In conclusion I just want to say that I believe in South Africa. I believe in its future; I believe in our Government; I believe in co-operation, consultation and planning. In this beloved country of ours we look forward to a future with a planned and orderly community throughout the entire South Africa.

The hon. member who has just sat down has introduced a motion that deals with the matter of water. Water, Sir, is something which is of the utmost importance to this country of ours where drought has come to be regarded as almost endemic. I want to say that we on this side welcome the motion because it reveals a direction in which the Nationalist Party has been going recently, of giving its attention to the practical day-to-day difficulties that the country has to cope with. This is a supremely practical matter which affects every one of us. The hon. members has moved a motion here which asks the Government to accept certain principles in its policy in regard to water planning. He has limited himself to certain principles which are enunciated in the motion, principles which deal mainly with agriculture. The viewpoint of this side of the House is that the question of the planning of water is something which is more important than agriculture only. It embraces the question of water supplies to industry, mining and farming. Because the hon. member has now come before the House with a request to the Government to formulate a policy, we on our side, because we believe so strongly that such a policy is vitally necessary in South Africa, wish to help the hon. member. We will therefore move an amendment in due course which will put our point of view as to the policy which ought to be followed in regard to the question of water supplies and the proper planning of water supplies in South Africa. I must say that it is a bit odd to find a Government which has been in power for 20 years suddenly casting about for a policy. This is the old story of Rip van Winkle who suddenly woke up to find that time had passed him by.

Look at your own record.

In the Water Act we have the mechanism laid down which allows the Minister, as the hon. member has said, to allocate water to ensure that there is a fair division. It was this mechanism, the mechanics of the division of water, which allowed the Minister to formulate a policy which would ensure adequate distribution between the various sectors of our economy. What the speech of the hon. member amounted to was a plea to the Minister to build a policy on that foundation. The whole of his speech was tantamount to an admission that there was no firm policy laid down and adopted by the Department in that regard, and the hon. member was asking that that should be done. Sir, I believe that there are certain matters which have to be taken into account when you are dealing with a matter such as water. I think we must take cognizance of the fact that a great deal of the water supply of South Africa is in Bantu areas. The hon. member did not deal with this. Anybody who looks at Natal —and it must be remembered that the policy of the Government to-day is based upon the transfer of industry to Natal where there is adequate water …

It is aimed at the establishment of separate communities.

Sir, I am talking about water, not about “aparte gemeenskappe”. I would like to draw the hon. member’s attention to the case of the Tugela River, which begins in a Bantu area.

[Inaudible].

If the hon. the Deputy Minister thinks that I just want to talk about the Bantu then he is totally wrong. Will he give me a practical answer to the problem of the Tugela River, one of the tributaries of which begins in a Bantu area and which flows out of white territory into a Bantu area …

I am quite prepared to discuss that with you.

Does the hon. the Deputy Minister believe there is Bantu water in South Africa and white water? Because that is the sort of attitude he is taking up here. When we are planning the future use of water in South Africa, we must take into account the fact that a large part of our water resources flows through Bantu areas and some kind of compromise will have to be reached. I want to know what the Minister of Water Affairs is going to do about it and what his Deputy is going to do about it.

I will use the water to turn you into a Nat (jou Nat maak).

Sir, it will take a lot more water than they have to make me “Nat”. This is a matter of practical concern. We have been told already that as far as the water in Basutoland and other areas is concerned we will have to have treaties with the neighbouring countries, treaties which will bind them and which will bind us as far as the use of water is concerned. I believe that this is something of which we must take cognizance now before these territories pass out of our control, and I suggest that this is something which should receive the urgent attention of the Minister who is now also in charge of water affairs. Incidentally, Sir, I also want to welcome the joining together of the Departments of Agriculture and Water Affairs. I think that this is a step in the right direction.

Sir, I want to make an appeal to the Minister of Water Affairs with regard to water conservation. We have in our country to-day a Festival of Soil, which is designed to bring home to the people of South Africa—the children, the farmers and the townsmen particularly—the desperate urgency of soil conservation. There are articles appearing in the newspapers and there are all kinds of activities and festivities being arranged to bring home to our people the importance of the subject. Sir, I would like to pose this question: What is soil without water? Would it not be possible for us, at some time in the future, to arrange a festival of water to bring home to our people how vitally important water is? The hon. member pointed out that a third of our country received less than ten inches of rain. There are vast areas of our country where the total water supply can well be threatened by water contamination and pollution if the strictest steps are not taken now to control it, at a time when we are simply beginning on a course of industrial development, particularly in areas such as Natal. This question of water conservation and, may I suggest, a festival of the water, is something which will bring home to our people, particularly those living in towns, how vitally important water is to us and how dependent we all are on the conservation of water and the protection of the sources of our water every day of our lives.

I should like to refer to the question of the re-use of water. What is the Minister’s policy, if he is planning a policy, in respect of the reuse of water? One thinks particularly of many of our coastal towns where millions and millions of gallons of water a day are pumped into the sea in the form of sewerage, water which can be purified. Those hon. members who went to the C.S.I.R. and drank some of the water after it had gone through the purification process will know what I have in mind. And yet millions and millions of gallons of water per day are just simply discharged into the sea, water which can be purified for re-use. We realize how important this question is if we remember what the hon. member for Klip River said the other day, i.e. that the population of the country will double before the end of the century. Can we in the circumstances just allow this vast amount of water, and that in concentrated industrialized areas along our coast, simply to slip through our fingers into the sea? I am not even talking about the pollution of the sea itself. Mr. speaker, I think the hon. the Minister will be well advised to look into this matter urgently. In America they have made fantastic progress with the purification of sewerage water. The American Congress is voting millions of dollars. Already they have embarked upon a billion dollar project to purify Lake Erie, amongst others—a vast expanse of water which to-day is practically useless as the result of industrial and sewerage pollution. So, I say this is a matter of which we should take urgent and serious note.

I am particularly interested in paragraph (b) of the hon. member’s motion. I do not know whether that now constitutes a new policy as far as the Nationalist Party is concerned. He asks that water be utilized in a manner “which will promote balanced socio-economic development and ensure the survival of rural towns”. We on this side of the House have over many years been saying that we ought to encourage light industry to go to rural areas so as to provide employment and establish centres of white population so that the white man can maintain his physical presence on the platteland. Let me assure the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development that I am not going to talk about the presence of the white man on the platteland now—I hope to do that on some other occasion.

You are telling me every day that he cannot exist there without the Bantu.

Well, I am not going to do so to-day. I want to ask the hon. member who moved this motion whether this particular portion of his motion constitutes a new policy. I ask this because the Minister of Planning has told us that there shall be no development of industries except in border areas.

Where did you get that from? He never said that.

It is obvious that the hon. member who is interjecting neither reads his newspaper nor follows what his Minister says. Here the mover of this motion asks for the “balanced socio-economic development” of South Africa. But how is it to be “balanced” when hon. members opposite have told us that they will bend and break the economic laws of South Africa? I would say that if this particular portion of the motion is adopted, the hon. member would have achieved something of which we have been trying to convince hon. members opposite for quite some time. We believe that the Minister and his Department should take adequate steps to safeguard, first of all, the water supply of all settled communities. This ought to be priority number one. If we are going to have a policy in respect of water for the future we have, first of all, to look at what there is here to-day before we plan for future development. The future wealth and development of South Africa depend upon the settled communities there are to-day and it is our duty to ensure that these communities are ensured of an adequate supply of water. Look at the effect droughts can have on small platte-land communities. There are places in Zulu-land, for instance, which in normal times have a surplus of water but are desperately short of water in times of drought with the result that water has to be trucked for many miles in order to keep those centres in action. This is an example of what I mean. So, we must ensure, first of all, that these communities, whether rural or urban, have an adequate water supply and that their survival is ensured before we go ahead to plan for the development of new settlements, industries, and things of that nature. This is a task which the Department should undertake first of all. I do not believe it is necessary for a controversy regarding the use of water between agriculture and mining. Such a controversy is not necessary if proper planning is done. There need be no controversy about who should get the water or about who makes the most beneficial use of the available water. I say we have the water, only it should be conserved, planned and reticulated correctly.

We believe, furthermore, that we should first develop the water resources within the boundaries of our country before we spend public money on schemes outside our borders, schemes over which we can have only limited control. We have enormous water resources within our borders. We have more than enough if there is proper planning and conservation. So, we believe we must ensure first of all our own survival and ensure that we have an adequate supply of water under our full control before we embark on schemes outside our borders, schemes over which at the very best we can have only a very limited control.

Are you in favour of water from the Tugela being given to the Witwatersrand?

I shall come to that just now. For the moment I am dealing with schemes outside our borders. The political issues involved in entering into agreements with neighbouring territories about water ought to be obvious to everybody. There is, for instance, a continual danger of communist subversion in neighbouring territories. Therefore we think it is dangerous for us to invest our money in water schemes in neighbouring territories before we have ensured an adequate supply of water within our borders. Now for the question of the hon. the Minister. He wanted to know whether I was in favour of pumping water out of the Tugela to places on the other side of the Drakensberg. The Minister I hope will be happy to learn that we are in favour of surplus anywhere being pumped to areas where there is a need of water.

What do you mean by “surplus water?” It is a very wide term.

It is for the Minister to establish what is surplus water. I would say surplus water is the amount of water still available after the local community’s needs have been adequately catered for. The hon. member for South Coast very pertinently raised this question in a debate last year. We believe this is something that has to be done. Look what they are doing in Australia with their fantastic Snowy Mountain scheme. Under this scheme the water of rivers which will otherwise be running uselessly into the ocean is diverted through tunnels to thousands and thousands of acres of land on which to-day food is produced, land which was barren and useless before. This is what I call good and clever planning, a wise utilization of skill and money. We believe that something of this nature is essential in our country. Conditions of drought are endemic to South Africa. There is always some part of the country where drought conditions are a threat to crops and to the farming community.

A further matter I should like to raise with the Minister is one which is of particular interest to us in Natal, and especially to my own constituency. I refer to the protection of the sponges, the sources of our rivers, which are exposed to many different threats, especially afforestation, bad land usage, ploughing up and draining. We on this side believe that active and urgent steps have to be taken in the first place to ascertain what damage has been done by afforestation to sponges and river sources, and in the second place to prevent this sort of thing happening in the future. The hon. the Minister and his colleagues have appointed committees which will submit recommendations to him. He now has the information. Some time ago I approached the hon. Minister of Forestry with regard to a certain farm in the Highflats area and asked him to freeze it, to refuse to allow trees to be planted thereon because of the danger of the water sources drying up for all the people further down, but the Minister at the time was unable to take action because he said he did not have the necessary information. It has been said time and again from that side that it has not been established for sure that afforestation dries up water sources. However, any hon. member who is a practical farmer will agree with me that if gum trees are planted at the source of a stream, it is the end of that stream. Certainly the Minister now has the information and we await with interest some indication from him as to what line he is going to adopt in regard to this matter and what he feels can be done to protect these vital sources of our water supplies.

I wish to move an amendment to the hon. member’s motion. I hope he will see his way clear to accept it, because we on this side are trying to help to place this matter on a national basis and have certain points of policy adopted which will enable proper planning to take place in the future. I do not have to reiterate how vitally urgent it is that this should be done. I wish to move the following amendment—

1. (a) that the first call upon available water supplies should be to safeguard and ensure adequate water for existing communities both urban and rural;
2. (b) that the full development and conservation of our own natural water supplies should take precedence over investments of public money to develop foreign water resources;
3. (c) that a national water grid system should be developed to permit transfer of available supplies from areas of surplus to areas of need;
4. (d) that steps should be taken for the re-use and desalination of contaminated water supplies; and
5. (e) that urgent steps are necessary to protect that water sponges and sources of our rivers by forbidding practices which, if persisted in, will result in the destruction of these vital assets of the country.”.

Mr. Speaker, in the space of the 15 minutes at my disposal, it is impossible for me to reply to everything which the hon. member for Mooi River has said. However, I want to point out a few of the barbs concealed in the words which he addressed to this side of the House. He did want to make at least some political capital out of a very serious national question. He began by saying that the National Party was lately beginning to pay attention to practical problems. That is so, we are paying attention to practical problems. It is a fact, however, that for 20 years the National Party has had to fight that side of the House when wanting to solve some of the most serious practical problems. The main practical problem confronting these hon. members, in fact, the nation, is the survival of white civilization. If that is not a practical problem, then I wonder what the hon. member considers a practical problem to be.

And what have you accomplished?

The hon. member for East London (City) does not realize even now what the Government has accomplished. They have been opposing us all along without knowing what they were opposing. This merely reveals the complete ignorance of those hon. members.

The hon. member also made a sly dig at the hon. member for Christiana by saying that his motion revealed to us that the National Party did not have a policy in respect of water planning and that the hon. member for Christiana was asking for one to be formulated. Surely the motion does not do that. Apparently the hon. member for Mooi River has not read the motion before the House. The true position is that the hon. member for Christiana again wants to draw the attention of this House and of the country to this extremely important and vital problem. What his proposal amounts to is that he is appealing to the hon. the Minister and the Government to determine certain priorities and to bring them to the notice of the people. That is what the hon. member for Christiana is asking for. For my part I want to congratulate the hon. member on and thank him for his motion. It is a very important motion. It is extremely important that the attention of the people outside of the House should again be directed to this very important matter.

Water is essential: water is indispensable to the development of this country. Water is extremely important. Water is a limiting factor in the development of this country. It is an extremely limiting factor. This was also pointed out by the hon. member for Christiana. I now want to elaborate on that a little.

If we consider that the average run-off of water in this country in one year is approximately 20 million morgen-feet, then it represents, as the hon. member told us, 8.6 per cent of our total rainfall. If we want to draw comparisons to see how limited our country’s water resources are, then we must bear in mind that the ten most important rivers of the U.S.A. alone have a run-off of 425 million morgen-feet per year. It is an enormous quantity in comparison with the small quantity we have available theoretically in the Republic. The River Nile alone has a run-off of 34 million morgen feet. It is almost twice as much as the run-off of all the rivers in our country. The quantity of water which can be conserved in our dams is subject to climatic conditions. We have, for example, an evaporation of 27 per cent per year.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, before the lunch adjournment I tried to indicate what an extremely limiting factor water is in our country and how limited our water resources are. It is imperative that both Parliament and the country give very urgent attention to these matters, because it is absolutely essential to utilize our water resources as economically and judiciously as possible. I understand that on the one o’clock news it was stated that the Governments of South Africa and Lesotho have announced that they have reached an agreement in regard to the building of the Oxbow Scheme. This is precisely what the hon. member for Mooi River warned us against. I hope that the hon. member for Gardens, who I presume will speak after me, will say whether he approves or disapproves of that. He must state his Party’s attitude in this connection. I say that it is imperative that we utilize our water resources as judiciously and economically as possible. While I said at the beginning of my speech that we have an average run-off of 20 million morgen-feet of water per year, in this country, it is a fact that only about one-third of this run-off can be conserved in practice. This means that in practice about seven million morgen-feet of water can he conserved. It is possible to do this in practice. At present we are already using 50 per cent of that seven million morgen-feet of water, and we are only on the eve of this country’s development. But if we take into account all the schemes already in existence in this country, that is to say, dams, Government water schemes and other irrigation schemes, and if we take into account schemes which are under construction and which have been announced are to be constructed, then the storage capacity at our disposal is larger than the amount of water which can be conserved per year. It will be possible to conserve more than seven million morgen-feet of water. At the present moment we can store two million morgen-feet of water, and plans are now being made for the catchment and storage of a further five million morgen-feet of water. Indeed, these plans have already been approved, and some of the projects are already under construction. This testifies more than anything else to planning in respect of our water supply in South Africa. I do not think that there is anyone who can accuse the Government of being unsystematic in respect of water conservation. The hon. members of the United Party are the last persons to talk specifically of water and water planning. Surely with a past such as theirs they cannot afford to mention the word “water”. In their day they also had a Minister of Water Affairs.

The hon. member for Christiana specifically asked for certain priorities in his motion. He dealt with each one separately. Owing to lack of time I only want to refer briefly to two of them.

The first is the provision of water for stock water-supplies. The hon. member dealt with this matter in greater detail, but I just want to emphasize that I agree with him wholeheartedly. I agree that the dry areas of our country where grazing is available but no water, can be aided by introducing water there. Here I do not agree with the statement by the experts that the introduction would lead to the trampling of that veld. My common sense tells me that it would in fact be a means of also bringing about better planning, better conservation and better utilization of the grazing lands, particularly with a view to meat production, which is perhaps going to be much more important in the near future than it is at present.

But there is also another priority which the hon. member mentioned and which I should like to emphasize strongly. It is in connection with the provision of water to the rural towns in order to stimulate socio-economic development in those areas. The present position is that most of our rural towns still depend upon underground sources, in other words, boreholes for their water supply. Although this is the position, most of those town councils do not even have control over the sponges where the water has its origin. Perhaps they have not given the matter all that much attention in the past, perhaps they have not seen to it that those sponges are properly conserved. But it is essential that a great deal of attention be given to this aspect of the matter in particular. I am grateful that the motion introduced by the hon. member for Christiana has afforded the hon. the Minister an opportunity of discussing these matters this afternoon and bringing them to the country’s attention. This is of special importance, as he has now taken over this portfolio. It may be rather late to do so, but on behalf of this side of the House I want to avail myself of this opportunity to welcome him and to congratulate him on his appointment as Minister of Water Affairs. We should like to offer him our fullest co-operation. We also have a new Deputy Minister of Water Affairs in the person of the hon. member for Soutpansberg. I want to take this opportunity of also extending a very cordial welcome, on behalf of this side of the House, to him as someone we know to have a great interest in water affairs. He is a person who has made a thorough study of this matter throughout his parliamentary career. We know that his interest lies there and that, in collaboration with the Minister, he will make a success of this responsibility which has been entrusted to him.

I want to go on dealing with the supply of water to our towns. I want to emphasize that although the vast majority of our rural towns are still dependent for their water on underground sources, it is nevertheless a fact that every year more and more towns are being supplied with water from Government water schemes, and I want to express my gratitude for that. I know this is being done year after year but this aspect of the matter will most definitely have to be given high priority at all times, because it is absolutely essential. I think that I must content myself with what I have said, because time will not permit me to start on a new argument.

I think I have already, on a former occasion, congratulated the hon. the Minister on the fact that he now has more than one department under him, and I warned him that he was carrying a heavy burden, but in any case I congratulate him again, and the hon. the Deputy Minister as well. The hon. member for Winburg said he was a person who took a great interest in water affairs, and judging from my experience of him I do believe that he is very interested in that subject. I hope that he will transform that interest into some concrete achievement and that it will not remain a mere interest.

The hon. member for Christiana introduced a very important motion here to-day. Every year we discuss water here, because it is of course one of our great problems and we take a great interest in it. We are pleased that he has done so because it affords us another opportunity of airing our views, and it afforded him the opportunity of encouraging the Government to do a little more than they are doing. Inter alia, he said that industries should be established at the water points. It seems to me he is departing ever so slightly from the policy of his Party. Their policy is that the industries must be established in the border areas.

But the water is there.

There is not always such a great deal of water, and it is a slight deviation from the policy. The hon. member said that our country had the brain power. I agree that our country has no need to take second place to any other country as far as brain power is concerned, in proportion to our numbers. We have the brain power and we are able to plan. All that we need is for the people who have to undertake planning to display a little more energy. The hon. member also spoke about the depopulation of the rural areas, and he said that we were always talking about this subject. Of course we are always talking about this subject; it is a very serious matter. We would not like to witness the depopulation of the rural areas. He went further and said that the rural towns must be assisted and that steps should be taken to keep the rural population there because there must be an adequate water supply in those towns. We agree with him, but then the hon. member must inform the Government that they should take steps in order to see to it that the rural towns obtain the necessary water so that they do not become depopulated. The hon. member for Winburg said that we had opposed them to such an extent on the question of the survival of the white race, and consequently implied that that was the reason why insufficient attention was being given to this water problem. It is because we had been opposing them to such an extent. I think we have opposed them very effectively, and if it goes on like this, I think we will eventually succeed in convincing them that the existence of the white race does not lie in the direction of their policy but in the direction of our policy. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Winburg also said that the principal reason for introducing the motion had been to draw the attention of the nation outside to our water problems. He said that that was the principal reason why the hon. member had introduced the motion. I think that we introduce motions here to draw the attention of the Government to problems, and I think that that is the reason why he did so. He felt that the Government was not doing its duty, and that is why he came forward with this motion, because the people outside do not really know what is going on here. [Interjections.] In his motion the hon. member requested the Government to include certain principles in its policy. In short as the hon. member for Mooi River stated, they have a dearth of policies; they do not quite have a policy in regard to the utilization of water, and that is the reason why he came forward with the motion. There is so often a lack of policy on that side of the House, and that is of course the reason why they so often accept the policy of this side of the House. [Interjections.] Last year we had a motion here which was also introduced by one of the hon. members on the opposite side in which the Government was requested to expedite plans and works in regard to water conservation, and to conserve and utilize all our water resources in the most beneficial way. We pointed out how slowly the Government was proceeding with the works and how wasteful they were in that regard, and how little correct planning there was. We know that there are many hon. members on the opposite side who agree with us and with the hon. member on that side who introduced the motion. I agree that this Government should take more energetic steps.

Recently we suffered a devastating drought, which was followed by flood damages last year. Last year we said here that we knew we would experience more droughts, but I do not think many of us expected that we would have another drought so soon after the flood damages. We did not think the drought was just round the corner again. Even if it rains shortly we will still have to go through another devastating period. The losses already amount to millions of rands. Half of the mealie crop has already been lost, and I read in the newspaper the other day that it is quite likely that the mealie farmers will suffer a loss of approximately R90 million. Nobody can make rain, not even the Government, and the Government cannot prevent droughts. But by undertaking timeous and correct planning and by establishing the necessary works, the effect of droughts could be considerably reduced. If this Government had planned sooner and if it had got to work the effects of the drought would not have been so bad as they are at present In the North-West there are still areas to-day which had no rains last year. There are farmers who have continually had to feed their sheep since 1966. One is filled with wonder at the courage and the endurance of those people, but it cannot go on like this; they will not be able to keep it up. Last year we had flood damages, and I am thinking particularly of those experienced along the Orange River, which ran into millions of rands. This could have been prevented if the Government had only carried out our plans, our plans which were drawn up by the late Senator Conroy to dam up the Orange River and to store the flood waters. This would have prevented those flood damages there and it would also have prevented our having a shortage of water at the end of the year, and another one now.

Our subterranean water is also becoming rapidly deplenished. There are parts where large numbers of boreholes no longer have any water. The hon. member for Winburg has already referred to that, and I do not want togointo details again. But the water table is dropping at a tremendous rate. There are parts of the country where we are pumping the subterranean water dry and it will be difficult to restore that subterranean water again. It is possible that a great deal of that water may never be replenished. As the hon. member also mentioned, we have a population which is increasing extremely rapidly. At the turn of the century we will probably have 40 million people. Every attempt must be made to conserve the soil, and also to conserve our water with which to irrigate that soil. In general we have a very low rainfall and too much water runs into the ocean. The hon. member for Winburg pointed this out with the aid of figures, and I do not want to go into this again. Every possible attempt to conserve our water must be made and must be made as rapidly as possible. We must also reutilize water on a much larger scale. It must be pointed out to municipalities what they must do in that direction. Figures in that regard have already been mentioned. For the cities along the coast in particular it is very easy to allow their water to run into the sea, but they must try and reclaim that water for further use. We must undertake research in connection with the utilization of nuclear power to desalinate water as cheaply as possible. The Free State gold mines are pumping out large quantities of brack water and we must see what we can do about reutilizing that water. I think that even the householders can economize on water to a greater extent. There should be a campaign to make our people conscious of water conservation the urban as well as the country dweller. Even amongst the irrigation farmers there are people who are using too much water and who are giving their lands too much water to the detriment of the soil.

We believe that preference should be given to people and animals, and that industrial use is also necessary, but that the use of water to produce foodstuffs is absolutely essential and that it should receive very high priority. Irrigation requires a great deal of water, but food production is of course essential. I have already mentioned the growth of the population, but we will have to do more in order to ensure that we produce enough food. We believe that preference should be given to establish communities as far as water provision is concerned. Where there are water shortages, such as in the Sundays River, as a result of the silting up of dams, provision should be made for these areas to be given top priority. Urban areas such as the Rand and Cape Town and towns such as De Aar need a great deal of wafer, and they must be supplied with water.

The hon. member also discussed the Oxbow scheme, and he said that I must reply to what he said. Our policy on this side of the House is to help our neighbouring states to the full extent of our ability with technical services, etc., in order to develop them as far as possible. However, we want go give priority to the development of our own water resources. In regard to the question of bringing surplus water from one area to another, the hon. the Minister asked whether we were in favour of bringing the water of the Tugela to the Rand. We are absolutely in favour of the surplus water of the Tugela being taken to the Rand. We have no objection to that.

Mr. Speaker, it was a severe political drought which brought the hon. member who has just resumed his seat from the region of Carnarvon to Cape Town Gardens where he is at present representing a United Party seat with a dubious majority. There are water restrictions here in the Cape Peninsula where his voters live. Gardens may only be watered between 4 and 8 p.m. New thought must be given to the water pattern here in the Boland but the hon. member stood up here and did not say a single word about it. I hope his voters will take note of this. What he should actually have done I shall have to do this afternoon. I should like to talk about the situation in respect of our water economy, more specifically here in the Boland, with reference to the motion introduced by the hon. member for Christiana.

But before I come to that there are a few basic points which I would first like to put forward. In the first place I would like to say that this is an important motion. I would go so far as to say that of all the private motions introduced during this Session this one is the most important. Mr. Speaker, it is true that the people of South Africa are gazing with new interest at the water economy of our fine country. In this country of ours we have had many droughts in the past; droughts have become a part of our whole way of life. However, it was only towards the end of 1965-’66 when the beautiful fountains in from of the Stock Exchange in Johannesburg in the Oppenheimer Square ran dry, that we in this country came to the actual realization that some new thinking would have to be done in regard to the future pattern of this country’s water economy. It was only at this stage, when almost 60 per cent of South Africa’s industrial production over a surface area of 6,600 sq. miles in the Vaal Triangle and almost five million people had been affected, that we realized that we in South Africa must give immediate thought to our water economy and that we would have to give new thought to the matter as far as the future was concerned. It was only then that we realized that every man, woman and child in South Africa must give new thought to this matter, to such an extent that if one talks about 1,000 gallons of fresh water in this country then that term must to them have the right meaning and he right content. In other words, we must reduce the concept of our water economy to measurable terms.

What is the water potential of this country? Scientists have calculated that the joint distributable water potential for industrial, agricultural and urban development is at present approximately 12,000 million gallons per day; that is an average of 700 gallons per person per day for our present population of 18 million people. This is a small amount if we compare it with the position in a country such as Canada where it is at the moment approximately 70,000 gallons per person per day, and with the position in the United States where it is 5,000 gallons per person per day. If we look ahead to the year 2000, then we are brought up against this situation: If a rate of development of approximately 5.4 per cent or 5.5. per cent per annum is maintained in our country up to the year 2000 this water potential will have to meet the requirements of 39,000,000 people in the year 2000. This will, within 32 years from to-day, reduce our water potential to less than 300 gallons per person per day, of which, at that stage already, 80 per cent will be used. This evaluation of our country’s water potential indicates very emphatically that the socio-economic development of the Republic in respect of its water potential at this stage already finds itself in a very critical situation.

Sir, let me define this concept of tangible terms further in practical language. The scientists calculate that if one wants to produce oil with a market value of R1 from coal, it would entail your having to use 400 gallons of water; to produce cheese, butter and milk with a market value of R1, you will have to use 150 gallons; in the case of electricity you will have to use 250 gallons; in the case of steel, 30 gallons; in the case of fresh milk for household use, 2,200 gallons; in the case of lucerne from irrigation, 11,100 gallons; wheat, 7,000 gallons; potatoes, 1,800 gallons; beef, 350 gallons; mutton, 650 gallons; and wool, 180 gallons. Let me condense these particulars further. What it really means in practical language is this: In industry 1,000 gallons of water, converted into its monetary value, gives you R5.80 to-day; in irrigation farming 1,000 gallons of water, converted into its monetary value, gives you an average of 10 cents; and in dry-land farming and cattle farming, 1,000 gallons of water gives you R3.80.

With these few basic concepts which I first wanted to state I now want to return to our Boland situation. We here in the Boland have no gold and no minerals. In the future industrial development in this area, in fact, on our entire level of existence, the sine qua non is water. We must have water here in the Boland. Never before in the history of the Boland has it been so absolutely essential that we should look with new eyes at the optimum utilization of our water potential in this specific area. To keep the socio-economic wheels running smoothly entails that we will have to place an emphatic valuation, along regional lines, on our Boland’s water economy, and with this purpose we can divide up the Boland area, Lesser Boland, if I may term it that, in four areas, i.e. the Cape Peninsula, the Upper Berg River, the Lower Berg River and the area of Twenty-Four Rivers.

I shall consider the Cape Peninsula first. In this area there is a restriction on water at the moment. Here in the Cape Peninsula there are at present very emphatic signs of over-concentration. Just look at our expensive building sites; look at what we are spending to-day in this vicinity on the expansion of traffic facilities; look at what is happening here in respect of the Coloured city which is developing here on our borders. The concentration of our Coloured labour potential has resulted in a metropolis in this specific area. We are continually bringing more and more water on a large scale to the Cape Peninsula from other Boland areas. I am thinking here of Wemmers-hoek; I am thinking of the entirely new planning in respect of the Voëlvlei Dam. Here once again is the latest planning, as it appeared last year in the White Paper which was submitted here, and from which it appeared that the Cape is also, for the first time, bringing a water supply on a large scale to the Cape Peninsula from this complex in the Boland, if I remember correctly, approximately 12 million gallons per day, when the scheme is completed. There is even an idea that water should now be taken from the Twenty-Four Rivers complex to the Voëlvlei Dam in order to bring it to the Cape Peninsula. I shall return to that later. I realize that we cannot oppose this. There is at the moment a water shortage in the Cape Peninsula complex, but it is time this complex was put into its perspective within the Greater Boland as a whole. Sir, let us deal with the planning which exists at present in respect of new water supplies to this area. I want to make the prediction here that if large-scale new planning is undertaken in respect of a water supply from other Boland areas, then there is in future going to be drastic opposition to this, because it is not fair to posterity that water should be brought here to the Cape Peninsula from one specific area on a large scale whereas the other Boland areas are neglected. This Government of ours stands for a policy of decentralization. The time has come for us to look for a new growth point on the industrial level in the Boland economy. Where is that new growth point situated? It is situated within range of the Lower Berg River, that is to say the towns from Moorreesburg and Vredenburg onwards the entire region within range of the Lower Berg River. You will recall, Sir, that the well known engineer, Mr. Shand, at one stage undertook the planning in respect of a dam project along the Lower Berg River. He proved emphatically that if a dam were to be built here with a wall 120 ft. high, the potential of that dam would be two-thirds that of the Vaal Dam. In this region we cannot undertake large-scale agricultural irrigation. At this stage the State is doing what is necessary— and I want to thank the hon. the Minister for that—in respect of stock watering and water for domestic use, for which an amount of more than R5 million was voted last year. That is the right thing, Mr. Speaker, but in this area we cannot look much further as far as agriculture is concerned. That is the area where the new industrial growth point in the Boland complex is situated. I hope that we will take this into account in our future planning. Why go and take this water from the Twenty-Four complex to the Voëlvlei Dam and then bring it at tremendous expense here to the Cape Peninsula with its clear signs of over-concentration? The obvious thing to do is to keep that water within that complex and utilize it there in order to form a new growth point. Mr. Speaker, there is the Upper Berg River. The year before last the Minister of Planning pointed out that we should give very serious attention to the new pattern for the future in the Boland, and it was then pointed out that the vicinity of Paarl, the Upper Berg River area, should be given new attention. It has been scientifically proven, with experiments undertaken since 1933, that it would be possible to increase production in respect of agriculture from 100 to 300 per cent in the Upper Berg River area. In other words, if we consider the Boland water economy, then the obvious thing to do in the Upper Berg River area would in the first instance be to give preference to the water requirements of the agricultural industry in that specific complex.

What about Bredasdorp?

I am talking about the Lesser Boland, but the hon. the Minister has a very good point there. The fact remains that the other additional area, where one cannot utilize the Boland’s water for agriculture is in the vicinity of Bredasdorp. I admit it, the hon. the Minister is quite right, but what I am actually talking about at this stage is the Lesser Boland only.

Then, Mr. Speaker, I made the point that it is being planned to bring the water from the Twenty-Four Rivers complex to the Voëlvlei Dam by means of a weir. When the opportunity offered itself last year I had a very serious discussion with the then Minister of Water Affairs, and he told us that a new investigation would be instituted in order to see whether this plan should not undergo an amendment. At the moment we have a new Minister of Water Affairs, and I am very pleased that he is a Western Province man. He has good sense. He will be one of the best Ministers of Water Affairs which South Africa has ever had. This Minister is going to use his sound common sense and I am absolutely convinced that he will see to it that justice is done and that he will also see to it that the water from the Twenty-Four Rivers complex is not taken to the Voëlvlei Dam in order to be brought long distances here to Cape Town.

The time has come, as I said at the outset, for us to approach this matter, i.e. future water planning in the Boland complex, within the framework of various regional areas. It is unfair to posterity to take water from one region to another on a large scale, which will make planning in that specific region difficult for future generations. The water from Twenty-Four Rivers should remain in that area. There, too, we must utilize it for stock watering and household use and to a limited extent for the provision of cattle fodder in that specific area; then we would be revitalizing this region. The hon. the Minister is smiling in agreement, and I hope that he will give us his support in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, water is such an important subject that we on this side wish we had more time to discuss the problems connected with it. Having listened to the debate so far to-day, I have come under the impression that hon. members on that side of the House try to insinuate that, while they had not done anything in the last 20 years, we on this side did nothing either when we were in power. They say we are to blame. I say this side did a lot with regard to water. The point is this: Has it taken hon. members opposite 20 years to discover what the United Party did or did not do when they were in power?

The hon. member for Moorreesburg said so much here about the water crisis in the Peninsula, and I want to ask him whether he really believes it is not his own Government’s fault that we have a shortage of water here, today? I say it is the Government’s own fault. They are guilty of delayed action, they cannot make up their minds, and they have not been able to make up their minds yet. We have had this story from hon. members opposite too often, blowing hot and cold all the time. I recall only ten years ago, in 1958, after they had been in power for ten years, I had the privilege of fighting a parliamentary election in the Cradock constituency.

And how did it go?

Very well indeed. That was my first blooding, and I have wanted more ever since. I recall going from meeting to meeting, promising the electorate the Orange River-Fish River Scheme, and I spent much of my time explaining to the people the blueprint which I had in my briefcase, the blueprint drawn up by the late Field-Marshal Smuts and the United Party. When question time came I was prepared for all the questions which could possibly be fired at me in regard to the Orange-Fish-Sundays River project. But the only question the people asked me at meetings in all those little dorps was: “Sê vir my, mnr. Wainwright, aan watter kerk behoort jy, dr. De Blank se kerk, of hoe?” This question was consistently put to me at every meeting. Those people apparently were not interested in water. Meanwhile their sheep and cattle and even donkeys were dying from starvation and thirst, but they were only interested in me, my church and Dr. De Blank. I will go further.

The memories of hon. members on that side do not serve them very well. I recall— and if need be I can read the relevant passages from Hansard—an occasion when the Nationalist Minister of Water Affairs in fact spoke against the Orange River project and said that it was not practical and would be too costly. [Interjections] Hon. members on that side know this is true.

Order! Is the hon. member not drifting too far away from the motion?

No, I am coming to the motion, Sir. I just want to remind hon. members opposite that they have failed hopelessly in the past. I will now come to this important motion, and again I want to help the Government side. I agree with suggestions made here that we should concentrate on the water sheds of the Republic, particularly the main water shed, the Drakensberg range stretching right from the north to the southern tip which we call the Stormberg range. Everybody will agree that it is so important for us to concentrate on the water sheds, the main sponges, the areas which have the highest rainfall. I do not agree we are concentrating on those sponges at all, the water sheds. In any case, we have not done so up to now. I say so because I happen to know those areas very well indeed. I own ground on the water shed where I can stand and see water falling on the one side of me flowing down to the Indian ocean, and water falling on the other side running down to the Atlantic ocean. This is the complete water shed. Yet the only work being done there is the work that we, the farmers, are doing. Nothing is being done on a national scale.

There is another problem the existence of which I know no one will dispute, and that is the serious problem facing our underground water supplies. It was rightly said by the hon. member for Christiana that our water table is dropping every year. But in certain areas, as in a valley on one of my properties, the water table has in fact risen, and risen to such an extent that I can even erect an oil engine or a small centrifugal pump. But I would never dream of doing such a thing. Ten years ago there were only brack sloots in this valley and no water at all. While I appreciate that many of our people realize the seriousness of pumping water from underground, still far too many people are pumping indiscriminately. I know hon. members agree with me. I believe the Government should step in and do something about this undesirable state of affairs. There should be more control over the pumping of our underground water supplies. Underground water does not belong to Jim Smith, John Brown or Piet Swanepoel only—it belongs to the whole nation. Therefore I submit that such water should be controlled wherever possible. I believe that if a man wants to erect a centrifugal or turbine pump, he should only be allowed to erect the pump with the approval of the Department of Water Affairs. It should be laid down that he may only pump so many gallons per hour per day, and the restriction strictly enforced.

Something else which is also disturbing not only myself but also many voters in the country is the fluorination danger of our water supplies for human consumption. We know that sodium fluoride is absolutely poisonous. We know it is very dangerous, in fact, it is even being used in rat poison, insecticides and fungicides. Yet, for various reasons, this substance is being added to our drinking water. We know that the British Medical Association and the American Medical Association Law Department are not prepared to guarantee the safety of water containing a fluoride solution. Already in America 2,500 communities have refused to use fluorination water, including 150 communities which have tried and in fact rejected such water. I believe that water treated in this way is not harmful to young children, say up to the age of seven years, but if used by older children and adults it can become very harmful indeed. I would therefore appeal to the hon. the Minister to investigate this serious matter very carefully. I think there is scope for improvement in this regard. It is a very serious matter and is being dealt with in an unsatisfactory manner in many parts of South Africa.

When it comes to water, the distribution of water, and paying for water projects, I believe we must think again. I believe water is a national asset and should be regarded as such. Personally I should like to see the Central Government take over the complete control of our water, and the payment of all expenditure incurred in connection with water projects should then come from taxation. There is no uniformity regarding the cost of water in South Africa to-day, water should be made available at a cost not greater than the charges made by most of the large municipalities. I want to quote an example to illustrate what I mean. Take an area like East London for example, where we are paying a very high price for water. East London is being handicapped to the extent that we have to find more water regardless of what it might cost. We have had the Minister of Planning there. What he plans to do, we do not know, but we heard in this House that thousands upon thousands of Natives will be resettled in that area. I mention East London just merely as one particular area. We know there are many areas bordering the Native reserves in similar predicaments. We have to provide water, not only for the resettlement of these Native people, but for the industries which are being promised to us there as well. So far nothing has happened, I might mention, except that we are busy trying to provide the water to provide for all the promises that this Government has been making.

Apart from having to provide water for our own consumption, human consumption, for the ratepayers, we have what I term the out-of-town consumers as well. These are the areas surrounding East London, townships and small municipalities such as Gonubie, Beacon Bay, Collondale, Government departments, industries, Mdantsane, and last, but not least, we have in fact even guaranteed to supply water to the Berlin Flats, for the industrial development of those flats. We know that all over the country our water consumption is rising year by year. I want to give you East London’s consumption. In 1961 the out-of-town consumption, that is the people outside the municipal area, was 150,000 gallons per day. In 1964 it was 250,000 per day, in 1966 550,000 gallons per day, in 1967 one million and, according to our estimate, in the year 1972 we will be using three and a half million gallons per day. This is only a third of what the whole of the East London complex is using per day.

Due to all the developments we have there.

No, which the hon. Minister has to bring there. The hon. Minister still has to bring development there. So far it has all been an illusion.

When we decided to build a dam, the Bridle Drift Dam, and I had deputations here last year asking for financial assistance, we were told: “Oh no, the areas in the lower reaches of the Buffalo River will not be subsidized by the Government, because they tell us it is not the responsibility of the Department of Water Affairs.” This is, according to the Government, a project which is the responsibility only of East London. I do not accept the standpoint of the Department of Water Affairs, namely that the Bridle Drift water scheme is a regional one. It is of national importance and I do not think it is right that we should be called upon to build and pay for the dam at all.

Order! What has that got to do with the motion?

This is providing water, Mr. Speaker, for the ideological plans of this Government. There is in fact no consistency with the Government in this regard. It is only consistently poor. I want to illustrate again. In Port Elizabeth they obtain the additional water for that area from the Koega Dam. This is additional water, additional to what they are using now. In Durban and Pietermaritzburg they get the additional water from the Midmar Dam. Queenstown gets it from Klipplaat and King William’sTown’s additional water comes from Rooi-krantz. These are only a few of the State water schemes which I have mentioned. Provision of water, therefore, should be taken as of national importance, and a place such as East London should receive a special place and special treatment in this regard.

I mentioned Mdantsane township, I mentioned the Berlin Flats. I want to mention two more. There is King William’s Town, which is also doing its best to provide water but so far they have had no assistance from the Government as regards the provision of more water for industry in that area.

It is a border area.

Yes, it is a border area. I want to support the amendment which my colleague from Mooi River proposed to-day. It is an excellent one, but it is time this Government stopped talking so much about water problems and did more about it. They have been in power for 20 long years. Twenty years is a long, long time. I still open up my briefcase which I have had for 20 years and look at those projects which were ready for implementation when my Government was still in power. But what has happened? They have been too busy on other projects which mean absolutely nothing to us. No wonder we are to-day embarrassed, by a desperate and serious shortage of water. We are faced with a crisis again. I can assure hon. members on this side of the House that the moment we get rain, when we are relieved of the serious drought conditions, we will hear no more about water from the Government side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to hear, from what members on both sides of the House said, how they actually supported the policy of the Government in regard to the provision of water in South Africa, for most of the matters they raised here and made out a case for are already contained in the Water Act, which this Government piloted through Parliament.

The Act is of no use at all; we want water!

Would one of the messengers kindly give the hon. member a little water so that he can keep quiet?

What this motion really amounted to was a confirmation of the policy which the Government is in fact pursuing. I am glad we have had this discussion. Perhaps some of the hon. members, particularly a few on the opposite side, did not quite understand the purpose of the motion. They were inclined to think that it was a Minister’s Vote which was under discussion. Surely that was not the intention of this particular motion. There is probably not one person in South Africa—least of all the Government—who does not realize the importance of the limited water resources we have at our disposal in South Africa, or that it is one of the scarcest but most important national assets we have in South Africa, or that we are going to experience the greatest difficulty in future if this matter is not tackled in the right way. According to calculations only 8.6 per cent of all water falling on the surface area of South Africa flows down in rivers. This means a flow of only 19 to 20 million morgen-feet per annum. With the intensification of our agriculture in many of our catchment areas and regions where there is a run-off into our rivers, even that run-off has in many cases been considerably decreased in recent years in many of our regions. There are even areas receiving 25 inches and less of rain where this run-off has decreased from 20 to 80 per cent, with a normal rainfall, owing to the agricultural operations in those regions. There are even some of our mountainous areas, in our high rainfall regions in the Eastern Transvaal and other areas, with the same rainfall, where the run-off into the rivers has also diminished to 30 per cent in some cases. This gives us an idea of how, with the development in the field of agriculture as well, with the cultivation of the soil, we run the risk that this run-off of 20 million morgen-feet may be decreased in future if steps, such as the more thorough planning of soil conservation, are not taken, and if we do not conserve our sponges to a greater extent. The figures I mentioned must inevitably give any country food for thought. If, in addition, we also take into consideration the fact that approximately 27 per cent of all our water stored in dams is being lost through evaporation and that a further percentage is being lost through spillage, it means that approximately seven million morgen-feet is going to waste in this way each year, i.e. one-third of the total.

Hon. members on the opposite side said that this Government has done nothing about our water problems during the past 20 years. I do not want to bore this House with figures. When my Vote is being discussed I shall perhaps be able to give them more details. However, I will say that the total storage capacity of all our dams which have been built and which are going to be built is 4.215.000 morgen-feet, i.e. 32 per cent of our surface area’s run-off water. In other words, for as much as 42 per cent of our run-off water dams have been built, are being planned, or will shortly be constructed. To that we can add that a daily total of approximately 640 million gallons of water is being obtained from all subterranean sources. If we take into consideration that our country with its relatively recent development has already undertaken planning for the storage of 30 per cent of our run-off water in dams, then you can see what the water position in South Africa can mean with greater development in the future. That is why I say that all of us are of course agreed on the importance of water conservation in this country. I would just like to furnish the House with a few interesting figures. According to calculations which were made as far back as 1960 by the Department of Water Affairs, the consumption of water in South Africa was as follows: For domestic, municipal, industrial and mining purposes, 521,700 morgen-feet of surface water, 55,000 morgen-feet of underground water; for stock watering, 17,000 morgen-feet of surface water, 18.000 morgen-feet of underground water; for irrigation 2,640,000 morgen-feet of surface water and 256,000 morgen-ifeet of underground water. In other words, 80 per cent of the water which was consumed in South Africa in 1960 was utilized for irrigation purposes. I am mentioning these figures to the House to indicate what an important part water has played in the past in relation to other resources and what a vast amount of water is required for irrigation purposes.

The picture I have tried to sketch of run-off water which is being consumed, compels every person to accept without any hesitation the hypothesis put forward in the motion, i.e. that water must be regarded as a national asset. In fact, I think it is a hypothesis with which no sensible person can find fault. It is also for this reason that it is the policy of the Government to recognize our water as the one supremely important natural resource in South Africa. I have already referred to the fact that this has been laid down in our Water Act. It is of course a generally acknowledged fact that the ultimate position in regard to the development and potential development of South Africa and is determined to a greater extent by our available water resources than by anything else. Even if we were in future able to undertake the economic desalination of sea water, the geographic situation of our country is such that it would be very problematical as to whether it could be put to economic use. This is so because most of our country lies3.0 feet above sea level, and because the water will have to be conveyed over tremendous distances. That is why it will in general be necessary for us to conserve our water resources as much as possible in the interior, particularly for the purpose of utilizing it there, for with technological development the only possibility is that desalinated water can be utilized economically near our coast and not in those regions which are unfavourably situated for that purpose.

It is the policy of the Government to regard all dams which have been financed with public funds as Government dams. On different occasions hon. members have asked me to ensure that the Government has control over water. By that means the State, as is provided in the Act, acquires the right to dispose of stored water. It can then be made available to the maximum benefit of the relevant consumers’ sectors. In this way 47 new dams have been constructed and six existing dams have been increased in size during the period from 1st July, 1948, up to the present—the period during which hon. members have claimed nothing was done. By this means a joint additional capacity for 1,256,000 morgen-feet has been made available. Then those hon. members come along and say that nothing has been done during this period. But that is not all. At this stage an additional 23 State dams are under construction, with an additional potential storage capacity of 5,136,000 morgen-feet of water. In other words, since 1948—and this includes the dams which are under construction—more than six million additional morgen-feet of water have been made available. And yet hon. members on the opposite side say that this Government has been sitting still and doing nothing for 20 years. The hon. member for East London (North), for example, said that we had done nothing in this regard. He said that he had gone about showing the United Party Government schemes to people. That was unfortunately the mistake of that Government—they only had blueprints. The result, of course, was blue babies.

The hon. member for Christiana put forward the hypothesis that water should be utilized for primary consumption in the first place. In other words, a preferential right to water for primary consumption must be entrenched. But I think that this principle has always been one of the cornerstones of our water utilization policy. Accordingly it is embodied in this way in sections 7 and 9 of our Water Act. We take this principle into account when Government works are laid out: In this way there are to-day at least 98 cities and towns which receive their basic or supplementary water from Government dams and canal systems. This includes,inter alia,cities such as Johannesburg. Pretoria, Durban and Bloemfontein. Port Elizabeth City is already receiving water from the Loerie Dam and will later on during this year be linked up with the Ceoga Dam, as the hon. member said. The number of cities and towns which are already linked up with the Government dams is continually being increased. This includes Government water schemes in towns such as Pieters-burg, Potgietersrust, Wolmaransstad Leeuw-doringstad, and so on. It is obvious that the Department has neither the manpower nor the funds at its disposal to lay pipelines from Government schemes to every town and city. That is why it is the policy of this Department that water should be supplied at the dam. It is then the function of the local authorities to convey the water from there to the places where it is consumed. It can also be mentioned that unpurified water from Government water works is being supplied to local authorities at very fair tariffs, i.e. 2 cents per 1,000 gallons if the water is taken from the dam sluices, and 4 cents per 1,000 gallons if it is conveyed by means of a system of canals. Thus this portion of the motion by the hon. member for Christiana is already embodied in the Act—in other words, it is already the policy of the Department, and that of the Government, to make water available for primary purposes in the first place.

Then the hon. member went further to discuss the consumption of water in order to bring about balanced development and ensure the survival of the rural towns. We also make it our objective to plan Government water schemes in such a way that justice can be done to all the equitable requirements of all consumers. Most schemes in South Africa are multi-purpose schemes, that is to say, water is being supplied for various purposes: For human consumption, for cattle, for utilization in industries, for the generation of power, for irrigation, etc.

Of course it is also being used for the development of border industries. Hon. members on the opposite side had a great deal to say about the fact that water is being made available for the development of border industries. Now it is a fact that many of the most constant water sources in South Africa are to be found in those very areas where the border industries are being situated. As hon. members know, the Minister has full right of disposal in regard to water from State water works. This is provided by the Act. In fact, every Government water scheme which is tackled in South Africa is approved by Parliament by means of a White Paper. Hon. members all have the opportunity of putting their case with reference to that White Paper. The hon. member stated that the riparian owners should, in the first instance, have the right to receive water from the river. It should be allotted to him primarily so that, as the hon. member said, he can build up a fodder bank there. To say that every farmer or owner living along the river who has riparian rights, should be given preference in the allocation of water from a Government dam, before other schemes for agricultural development are tackled there, is of course more easily said than done. However, we must remember that the canalization of water is tremendously expensive. If there are good irrigation dams available which require shorter canals and therefore lower costs, that still does not prevent such an irrigation scheme, such a settlement as we knew it in the past, from contributing its share to the production of foodstuffs. On the contrary, it may often be more economical to produce foodstuffs or fodder for animals on such a scheme than to supply every farmer along the banks with water from the dam in question by means of a long system of canals. So, when planning is undertaken for the provision of water from Government water schemes, this is of course taken into consideration and the riparian owners in all the existing schemes, and in those which are being laid out, are receiving water for agricultural purposes. If he has already undertaken irrigation he receives the same number of rights he had before, and if a new scheme is being tackled in which he has not yet had any share, then he shares on an equal basis with all those who fall under that scheme. But I think it would be asking a great deal to say that when a Government water works is established, only the riparian owners should be given preference to that water without taking into consideration possible new settlements. That will make the schemes tremendously expensive. I also agree with the hon. member that, where it is practicable, the smaller towns should get their water from the State water schemes, if that is economical. However, I want to tell hon. members that with the division of water for primary utilization we had cost surveys made, in many cases, of what it would cost to supply water for stock drinking purposes in certain areas. In many cases that water costs more than R1 per 1,000 gallons of supply, which makes it to a large extent uneconomical for the persons who have to utilize that water.

When we talk about fodder production for utilization in the breeding of animals, we must ask ourselves for what reasons we want to breed animals? I am talking now about animals and animal products. It is to a very great extent in order to supply the supplementary proteins for human nutrition, apart from the fact of course that we are very fond of eating meat. However, when it comes to the utilization of water in order to supply proteins for human consumption, then one can in many cases produce proteins much more cheaply under irrigation when you compare it to what it costs to produce fodder in order to produce animal proteins. So when one analyses these matters, in the light of the scarcity of water and the costs of storing it, as well as the growth in our population over the next 40 years, then one must in one’s planning inevitably take into account the fact that by the turn of the century we will have a much larger population to feed and we will then have to see to it in our planning in regard to the utilization of these water resources that you supply them with the cheapest form of protein foods, whether animal or vegetable proteins. That is why I maintain that you cannot consider only the economy of the utilization of water for producing animal products if you are dealing in the long run with the development of your country. You must also take into account a large population which requires protein foods, and then you must ask yourself in what way you can utilize the water for that purpose most favourably.

Are you talking about the production of beans now?

Yes, that is one form of vegetable protein. Hon. members mentioned the problem arising as a result of the decreased run-off in our rivers which is caused by the fact that the sponge areas are being covered with trees. I think that this matter has come to our attention more prominently in recent years after certain investigations were made and statistics compiled in regard to the way in which the run-off is being influenced by the fact that our sponge areas are being covered with undergrowth. In terms of the Water Act, section 59, the Minister of Water Affairs has the right to declare certain areas to be catchment control areas. The Minister also has certain rights, in terms of section 61, whereby he is authorized to put an end to certain prejudicial activities. This matter has become extremely urgent, particularly in recent years. There is a tendency on the part of large companies, particularly those concerned with forestry—and perhaps the State has also to a certain extent been an offender in this respect in the past; I do not want to commit myself in this regard—to buy up these lands, particularly those in the high rainfall areas and in the sponge areas, and plant these areas with trees because they are of course the areas where the rate of growth of the trees is the most rapid and where an income can be more rapidly produced. But I want to issue a warning to-day to those following this practice that if this practice is continued we will in future have to take steps in terms of sections 59 and 61 of the Act to prohibit or to curb that practice. In South Africa we cannot afford our catchment and sponge areas, which have to ensure our water supply, being prejudiced in such a way.

There are of course other methods, apart from the storage of water in dams, whereby we can economize on water in South Africa. The hon. member spoke about the purification of water. I just want to tell him that in terms of section 21 of the Act, we also have the authority to take steps in regard to any effluents which pollute the water in rivers. It is obvious that these steps are usually taken in conjunction with the municipalities and the industries in that area, and we usually meet with good co-operation on their part in our efforts to prevent pollution. But if municipalities or local authorities do not co-operate we have the power, in terms of the Act, to put a stop to it and I also want to point out that if this pollution takes place we will not hesitate to act in terms of section 21 of the Act. It is of course one of the greatest problems we have, i.e. that the effluent running into the rivers is to a large extent polluting the water.

We then come to the next possibility which we still have in South Africa in regard to water. In one breath the hon. member said that nothing was being done about it, but in the next breath he said he had paid a visit to C.S.I.R. where he had seen experiments being carried out in regard to the desalination of water. I do not understand how he can witness experiments being carried out on the one hand and can say on the other hand that the Government is doing nothing. Surely it is apparent from experiments which are also being carried out in other parts of the world that it might be possible, within the foreseeable future, to desalinate water for human consumption and that it will be a paying proposition, particularly for the industries, to make use of that water. That is why I also foresee that our planning will have to be such that as much utilization of water as possible must take place in the interior, and that the water which is available along our coast will have to be utilized more specifically for industrial purposes.

The hon. member for Moorreesburg spoke about our position here in the Boland, and the utilization of water here. I just want to tell him that if we regard the Boland as a unit for certain purposes, we should also regard it as such for other purposes. If we regard it as a unit for development purposes, then we must also see it as a unit in regard to its water supply problem. I want to give the hon. member an assurance and tell him that regardless of what will be done in the Boland in regard to water he will, if he exercises a little patience, perhaps feel a greater measure of satisfaction in a few weeks’ time when he sees the Estimates. In the Boland complex the planning will be such that the water resources available here for the use of industries, for human consumption and for agricultural purposes will ultimately be interlinked to such an extent that they will be able to supply the Boland as one great complex. That is the intention of our Department and the Government, and that is why the Government appointed the Water Plan Commission, so that we can link up the various water resources as far as possible, and so that we can organize the provision of water in such a way that one source can, as far as possible, be supplemented from another. I am talking about the network of dams upon which we are already engaged, and for that reason the planning in future will also be such that the water resources will be utilized to the greatest economic benefit, not only of those areas in which they are situated, but also of the country as a whole.

Debate having continued for 2½ hours, motion and amendment lapsed in terms of Standing Order No. 32.

Mr. Speaker, I move the motion standing in my name—

This matter arises out of the fact that statements have been made from time to time, that it is the intention of the Government to remove the Bantu from the Western Cape and that the Western Cape will have a manpower personnel exclusively consisting of Coloureds or as far as possible. In the ordinary course of events, one thinks of the Western Cape as just stretching up to the mountains, the Draken-stein or the Outeniqua Mountains. But the Western Cape actually goes a long way up. According to the hon. member for Heilbron, who made a speech on the subject last year or the year before, it goes right up to the Orange River, and of course there is the well-known Eiselen line from Aliwal to Humansdorp; and, there is another line from Aliwal to the mouth of the Fish River. I do not want to discuss the political aspects of that at all. I want to discuss the difficulties which I experience in dealing with Coloured people in the platteland towns and the municipalities, who are somewhat disturbed because of the lack of guidance or instruction or advice from the Government as to what they should or should not do.

Let me, first of all, trace some of the history of the Coloured urban ratepayer. From 1951 onwards there was a general tendency on the part of the Government to cut the Coloured man off from urban ratepayers’ activities and particularly to stop him from becoming a member of a city council. The first thing done was of course to raise the qualification. After that the position was that when a Coloured man occupied a house which was an economic type of house, he would qualify on the basis of owning a property worth £200, in those days, or R400 or occupying one of £400 or R800. But when they reached that position the authorities were very clever. They decided to make the rent a weekly rent, with the result that the Coloured man could not qualify. Ten or more years have gone by and we find that the position now is, all over the platteland, that there are large numbers of sub-economic houses built by town councils, in good faith. Some of them are not of the standard they should be, some are better and some are worse. But the situation is, that in nearly every case these townships are on bad ground—not in all cases, of course—and the same municipalities have had the attention of the Group Areas Board which also demarcated many of the towns on the platteland a Bantu area. There are numbers of examples where the town councils over the years have found themselves with these townships consisting exclusively of sub-economic housing schemes, and because of their own activities, they have no Coloured ratepayers. What is more, they are reluctant to make land available where the Coloured man can buy land to build for himself. It is of course, the policy of the Government, that irrespective of race, colour or creed a man should be able to own his own home. But the Coloured men on the platteland have great difficulty in getting a suitable piece of ground on which to build their own houses, because, in the Cape Province, they would then qualify as voters.

There are many of these examples. When we look at these Coloured townships we come to the kernel of the debate which I am introducing this afternoon. All these properties are more or less of a standard type. There are no roads inside the towns; there is very poor street lighting, if it exists at all. The water, of course, is laid on at points several hundred yards apart in the streets. When I approach the town councils, as a member representing Coloured people, they always tell me that they have not got the money. The attitude of the Government is, that sub-economic housing is financed from sub-economic funds and we accept that. But for a very long time the town councils have steadily been getting themselves involved financially in providing not only roads, services, amenities and facilities inside the townships from economic funds, but also the access roads, the service mains, water mains, power mains and sewers. The result is, that the white ratepayers in the small local authorities find themselves burdened with the problem of having to meet the interest and redemption on these loans; that is to say, when the council does the job, but in most cases it does not do the job. The platteland is choc-a-bloc full of small villages which have set aside these sub-economic housing schemes for occupation by Coloured people.

Sir, to get down to the gist of what I want to say, I think the time has come when the Government should come to grips not only with the problem but with the municipalities themselves and make funds available for them. It should also see that the job is done and that these people do get good facilities. After 20 years of Nationalist Party rule, there are still the most shocking Coloured townships that you could imagine on the platteland. The councils simply say that they have not got the money to do very much. Concurrently with that, arises the problem of the Bantu in their midst. That I will deal with in a few minutes. It is true Sir, that there is a Community Development Fund which has been in existence for some years. I often wonder whether the municipalities know that this fund is in existence and what the terms and conditions are for funds to be applied to the particular problem of supplying amenities. The whole basis, of course, is wrong. The Coloured man is in a cleft stick. He has no voice as a ratepayer in the urban area except in a few of the bigger ones. In the platteland towns he has no say whatsoever. The funds of the town councils are limited. Their sources of revenue are very restricted. They are merely the product of a rate on fixed property. As the years have gone by the responsibilities of the local authorities have expanded out of all recognition. They are being called upon to-day to do jobs which were never intended in the days when the method of financing these works was evolved. We find that small local authorities, with a preponderance of Coloured and Bantu, are limited to the small rate which is payable by a lesser number of white ratepayers.

Sir, I am very sorry that the hon. member for Colesberg is not in his seat, because it was in Colesberg that this problem was brought to my notice very forcibly. I had had a letter some time ago from the Town Clerk of Beaufort West saying that it was impossible for them to be responsible financially for the large number of Coloureds who resided in Beaufort West. I found that to be the case in many of the platteland dorps throughout the Karoo and in the Eastern Cape. Sir, I do not think the House will be impressed by a lot of figures but I want to deal quickly with the Colesberg case. Colesberg has 5,850 Bantu, according to the latest figure I have, and. 3,742 Coloureds and 1,800 Whites. The 1,800 Whites are carrying the heat and burden of the day. The town councils are not sure whether they can provide land in freehold for the Coloured person to buy and build. In terms of the town planning ordinances and the requirements of the Department of Community Development, they are required to lay out townships. In these townships they must provide parks and gardens. This is a fancy term but in the Karoo a park and a garden consist of nothing but a lot of stones lying about. As far as Colesberg is concerned, I went to see the mayor because I wanted to be sure that what I said in this House would be factual. They have built quite a reasonable township for the Coloured community and they have set to work to do something for the Bantu, but for some reason or other—I think the reason is this new idea that the Bantu have to move—the Bantu village is not being proceeded with at the pace that it should be. The town council is told—I quote —“that all the Bantu in a place like Colesberg must move”.

Where to?

That is the whole question, Sir. All over, there are town councils or village management boards struggling with this problem. I think it is all very nice and airy-fairy for a Minister to stand up at a luncheon or a banquet or at his party’s “stryddag” and say, “We are going to move all these people,” because the 64,000-dollar question is this: Assuming that they do move these people, who is going to come in their place to do the work? There are many, many thousands of these people. As far as the coloured people in the Eastern Cape and in the Transkei are concerned, who will now have to come west— there are many people to-day who are thinking that they are just going west—the hon. the Minister told me in answer to a question in February, 1968, that they were only now, after 20 solid years of talking, appointing a committee to investigate the resettlement of Coloureds “at present resident in the undermentioned areas who would prefer to be moved”. What about those who do not prefer to be moved and who want to stay where they are? Sir, I put it to the Minister that the Government should put a stop to all the talking and get on with the job. We have heard a lot about separate development. Up to now we have had plenty of separation but very little development. These small communities know quite well that they simply cannot exist on their own, and I do not think that any hon. member opposite, who comes from a platteland constituency, would ever suggest that the Coloured townships around the towns in the platteland, which they represent, could stand on their own feet and develop separately. So, we come back to the problem that they have to develop in conjunction and in collaboration with the white town councils. I say to you, Sir, and to the hon. the Minister that these town councils need assistance. I think they would like to carry out the job; I think they would like to proceed with it, but there are a number of other problems which flow from this movement of one group of people from one part of the town to another. For example, in most of the platteland towns there is a hall of some kind which the Coloured people can use. Under the new scheme these people are moved and accommodated in some other place but they have no hall. When a school is built—and that usually takes a very long time—they can sometimes get authority to use the school for a meeting, but that is always subject to the approval of the council, if it is in a white area, and of the Department of Community Development, and apart from that they have to get past the school committee on which the “dominee” usually sits. He wants to know why they want to hold a meeting on a Sunday in the school.

And then they have had it.

As my hon. friend correctly says, they have had it. Sir, we come now to the question of churches. The Coloured people are very religious, as hon. members know. They are deeply concerned because the town council moves them out of the white area where their church then stands “stok-alleen” by itself, and now they have to do something about building a church. I believe that those people should be assisted financially to build a church in keeping with the size of the congregation that that particular denomination attracts.

Then we come to the question of the provision of amenities. Let us deal with the question of beaches for example. I want to tell you, Sir, that over the 20 years that I have been in public life I have seen the Starcke Commission, I have seen the Heunis Commission and the Torlage Commission, all trying to deal with the same thing. It is all very well, in terms of community development, to put fancy pictures on paper and to indicate in green crayon that this is a green belt or that this is a church site or that this is something else, but you must have the money. I say that these small communities simply cannot afford these amenities. I think that the Government is being unfair and that it must help. That is the purpose of the motion which stands in my name. The next question that arises in this: Having selected these separate beaches, who is going to pay for the access roads over the sand dunes to get there? These people are never given a decent beach which is near the railway; they are never given a beach on a regular service; the beach is always in some remote place, and the local authority is expected to provide the access roads. Once they get on to the beach and wish to take off their clothes and put on their bathing costumes, who provides the amenities on the beach? The local authority.

I believe that the time has come for the Government to face this in a serious vein and assist the local authorities to get these things done. The Rossouw Commission, on which I just want to touch briefly because other speakers will deal with it in more detail, made one discovery after writing about 46 pages of recommendations, and that was that the money had to be found to do what they suggested, and they did not want to tackle that part of the job. Then, Sir, there is the question of sanitation and sewage outfall. These local authorities can-not possibly cope with it, because their revenue is limited. I do not have to tell you, Sir, what the development in the platteland towns is like. We read in the newspapers that the Coloured people are streaming into the towns. I hope the Government is not contemplating any kind of restriction in that regard, because I think that will be a move in the wrong direction.

I am going to deal in some detail with a city with which I am most familiar. If any town council has done its duty in regard to providing separate housing and separate amenities, it is the city of Kimberley. What has been the result? The town council has found itself in a position where it has had to raise the rates to an exorbitant figure. The reason mainly is lack of sufficient revenue. Due to the peculiar layout of the town, the townships are scattered. The council has provided all the necessary amenities, and in particular it has provided amenities tor the Bantu. The council believes if the Bantu can be drawn off the streets and made happy in their residential area, they will be of little bother to other residents. The Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education is reported to have said that we are making it too cosy and comfortable for these people and that as a result they will not want to go to their homelands. These people have properly fenced football grounds, sporting a pavilion a sports stadium, a swimming bath, halls, crèches, libraries, and other amenities, and it now appears that these things are making life too attractive for the Bantu in the white areas.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister a question. When all these Bantu are removed from half the Cape Province to some unknown destination, who is going to use the properties and buildings that have been built for their use and occupation in good faith and with the understanding that persons who have been in towns for at least 15 years or in continuous employment for at least ten years are entitled to stay there? The Government has made the whole position so uncertain that town councils are literally stopping in their tracks. They want to know, “How far do we go and what more shall we do?” I believe the time has come that these matters should be clarified, that a statement of policy be made in plain, straightforward writing, rather than all this talking at banquets and public functions.

Can you name councils who have stopped their housing schemes … ?

No, it is not a question of stopping housing schemes …

That is what you are saying.

I would like the hon. the Deputy Minister to make a speech and tell us what he is getting at.

Another group of people who must get some consideration are those Bantu and Coloured people on the platteland, particularly Coloured people, who leave farms and come to the urban areas. In many cases these people are merely unemployed, but in a great number of cases they are old, aged and infirm. The platteland town councils have no accommodation for them. The law lays down, and the town councils have to enforce the law, that if such an individual enters a township he may not stay there without authority or a permit. When he goes to ask for a permit he is asked what he is doing there, and if he replies that he is visiting friends, he is told he cannot stay there. If he then complains that he has nowhere to go, he is told that that does not matter and that he has to go. He then asks whether he cannot be provided with a house, and the official concerned has to advise him that he first has to stay there for 12 months before he can be given a house in the township. That is the first thing that happens.

The second thing to happen is that the man gets fed up and goes out of town to the divisional council outspan. One can see these groups of people all over the Karoo, a man with his wife and all his goods and chattels on a little cart, his dog tied with a piece of string to the axle. When he gets to the outspan, the divisional council road inspector, who also collects the outspan fees, comes along and asks him, “What are you doing here? You cannot stay here for longer than 24 hours”. The man then replies, “But I have nowhere to go”. The inspector replies, “Well, that is not my business—you cannot stay here for longer than 24 hours”. So the man and his family—and dog—move along the wire and there the family sit with a few “afdak” pieces of galvanised iron and his little pot in which they make their meals.

In all seriousness I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that on the platteland the town councils have to be assisted. I want to come back to the Colesberg example. In a letter which I received from the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs he says that, according to the Department of Community Development, there are no squatters. I am not going to query the accuracy of that statement, except to say he must have confused the towns to which I referred him at the time. I will explain why I say this. The sheep shearers in the Orange Free State come over the Orange River and camp under the most shocking conditions. I visited the town clerk. I went to inquire what was going on. The Council concerned said it had no responsibility, the divisional council had no responsibility, and the magistrate also had no responsibility. So here these people are, nobody accepts them. Among them we find aged, old, infirm people. I am not going to suggest that farmers are heartless people and just chase these old people off their farms—although some do, but not many. What happens is a man may sell his farm to some other person and the new owner does not want to inherit all these old “handlangers”; he does not want all the old retainers on the farm on his back. So he says to them, “Get going”. But there is nobody to look after these people. There are no facilities for them, and the town councils cannot afford to provide any because they simply do not have the funds. I believe the time has come that the Department of Community Development should get to grips with the problem, start right at the bottom, and get this matter sorted out so that these people need not have the harrowing experiences which they have to suffer.

I would like any hon. member of this House who is sufficiently interested to return to the north by road and stop over at Colesberg. There he will see on the right hand side of the road, just before he gets to the big garage at the end of the town, a galvanised iron room, no, what he will see are four-gallon paraffin tins flattened out and tied together with bits of wire, under the gumtree. That is how those people have to live. And this is in the 20th century. I do not blame the council for those conditions because I think they are doing their best. I do not think they have the necessary means at their disposal.

I also wish in passing to refer to the following matter. The other services which should go with the creation of townships are brought into being much too slowly. However, I intend dealing with that under the Minister’s Votes. To-day I only wish to draw attention to one thing. Even in the Bantu villages the municipalities have very limited funds. Their only sources of revenue are site charges, certain service charges, and the profits on beer. So, in order to enable the municipalities to make a “go” of it, the Bantu must be encouraged to drink. In this way as much money as possible is obtained from them and the department duly takes 80 per cent of the hard tack sales profits and spends it to improve conditions in some distant part of the country. I believe that that money should be left with the municipality where it belongs. The municipality should be encouraged to provide proper facilities for the inhabitants. They should not have to listen to all this mythical nonsense about how all these people are going to be moved. In conclusion I can say, Sir, that the number of Coloured people in the Eastern Cape who are going to be brought West are nowhere near enough to do the work of the Bantu who are already in the Western Cape, and when I say Western Cape I do not only mean the Peninsula and the Boland. I mean up behind the mountains, on the Karoo itself. I suggest that hon. members go to places like De Aar and Beaufort West and all the other small towns and see for themselves what is going on there. Then they would not be so smug and so satisfied that the Coloured man and the urban Bantu are being given a fair deal.

Mr. Speaker, while listening to the motivation of the hon. member for Karoo’s motion, I could not help feeling that what he really had in mind was not merely concern for the Coloureds, about whom he told so many tear-jerking stories here this afternoon.

Are you going to thank the Government for what they have done?

I shall come to that. I think that the hon. member’s motive in accusing the Government of not making sufficient funds available to the municipalities to carry out the policy of separate development in all spheres, including the rural areas, was not so much one of concern for the non-White race groups. In point of fact we heard the voice of Jacob and felt the hand of Esau. We know this hon. member as a supreme champion of racial integration, and an arch-enemy of group areas. [Interjections.] This is in fact the reason why this hon. member has introduced this motion this afternoon. In a subtle manner he wants to tell the outside world that this Government is not carrying out its policy of separate development and the establishment of group areas, and that the non-Whites who are affected by this, are being shamefully fobbed off and neglected. That is why he said that the essence of his plea amounted to this, that the time had arrived for the Government to consult with the town councils, tackle the job and ensure that sufficient funds were available for carrying out the task. He also maintained that the municipalities did not know what provision was being made for them.

I now want to suggest that the hon. member for Karoo did not do his homework. I make this accusation against him this afternoon, I throw it at him across the floor of the House, and I shall explain why I say it. Because he came to light here with such unfounded suggestions, devoid of all truth, I want to move an amendment to the hon. member’s motion immediately, before going any further. The amendment reads as follows—

I think that this Government can be justifiably proud of the way in which its policy of separate development and group areas development has been implemented in the past 20 years since it came into power, if regard is had to the national income and the unique composition of the population with all the complications inherent in that. The Government has made the necessary funds and facilities available for the peaceful co-existence of all the race groups in this country. All the various race groups are benefiting greatly under our policy, precisely because we are applying a policy of group areas development, and not the policy advocated by that hon. member. I can prove, though I do not have the time to go into it now, that the hon. member is an arch-enemy of the policy of group areas. It is precisely because we do not want a mix-up and racial integration in South Africa, because all the race groups enjoy those privileges which they do in terms of our policy, and because they are being developed in their separate group areas, that much more attention and much more special attention are being given to them than would otherwise have been the case. If we were to have had racial integration, which the hon. member advocates, minority groups such as the Coloureds and the Indians would have been swallowed up by the majority groups, and their interests would not have been looked after as well and as carefully as is the case under group areas development.

Because my time is limited, I do not want to go into the assertions made by the hon. member in regard to our Bantu. Another hon. member on this side will enter into that aspect. In the short time at my disposal, I want to confine myself to dealing with the impressive contribution made by this Government over the years in providing facilities and funds to the Coloureds and the Indians within the framework of the Group Areas Act and our policy of separate development. I do not think we must view this whole matter so parochially, so locally, as the hon. member for Karoo does. By means of the Department of Community Development and the National Housing Commission, the Government makes loan funds available not only to rural municipalities, but throughout the country. If the hon. member had done his homework, he would have known this. I want to add at once that every rural municipality, just like every urban municipality, has the right to apply for loan funds. I challenge the hon. member to name an instance where such a request was made and the applicant was not given sympathetic treatment and assistance. He did not mention one single instance here this afternoon. The hon. member came forward with a lot of generalizations with which he wanted to create the impression that we were neglecting the poor Coloureds in the rural districts.

For what purposes can they apply?

For the same purposes as any other Coloured group in the urban areas, namely to build houses and everything that that involves.

Everything?

Yes, everything. It covers everything.

Town halls and so forth as well?

I have only a short time at my disposal. If the hon. member wants to make a speech, he may do so. Let us just consider a few figures. I have here the latest figures of the Department of Community Development to prove what loose statements the hon. member made here in connection with the assistance rendered to Coloureds throughout South Africa by means of loans and the provision of amenities. I also have the figures here in respect of the Indian group. What has the Department of Community Development spent throughout the years? Because I do not have sufficient time, Sir, I just want to mention to you the figure in respect of housing loans granted for housing schemes, and made available to local authorities in 1966 and 1967. At the economic interest rate of 6¾ per cent town councils were enabled to erect 3,110 houses for Coloureds and 2,380 houses for Indians by means of funds provided by the Central Government. This was made possible through the provision of R5,076,169 for Coloureds and R5,359,397 for Indians. What does the hon. member for Karoo say now? As a result of the fact that those funds were made available, every rural municipality, including Colesberg or De Aar, or any of the municipalities mentioned by him, could have applied for these loans. Does this give the impression that the Government is neglecting the Coloureds, if it is borne in mind that large sums had to be made available over the years by the Central Government for White and Bantu housing as well? But let us go further. At the sub-economic interest rate of ¾ per cent—to which the hon. member referred specifically—the State made the following funds available to town councils in 1966-’67, and rural town councils are included here: R3.493,494 was made available by means of which 4,040 houses were built for Coloureds, and R511,605 by means of which 363 houses were built for Indians. This is only one scheme in terms of which funds were provided by the Central Government. In the limited time at my disposal, let me just quickly mention other funds by means of which the Coloureds and Indians can build homes. You will then be able to see, Sir, how unfounded the allegations are which were made by the hon. member for Karoo this afternoon. There are the important housing loans that are provided in terms of the building programme of the National Housing Fund, for which large sums—millions of rand—are being made available. Then there is also the Community Development Board, which spent R67,297 on Coloured housing in 1966-’67. I can go on in this way. But I think that these figures completely refute the allegations made by the hon. member for Karoo this afternoon. Let us now analyse a little more closely these funds which are made available by the Central Government to town councils for the purpose of Coloured housing. The whole tenor of the hon. member’s speech was that local authorities were short of funds and therefore unable to implement the Government’s policy of separate development. What is the position? The position is that, in point of fact, local authorities do not have to pay a farthing to provide all these large-scale housing schemes which I have mentioned for the various race groups. I do not know if the hon. member is aware of this. He ought to be aware of it if he has done his homework. The loan funds which the National Housing Commission makes available to town councils and divisional councils for sub-economic Coloured and Indian housing cover each scheme fully. The funds cover the purchase of the ground and the provision of services such as water, power and sewerage. As I have said, the hon. member told us these tear-jerking stories because supposedly the poor Coloureds had no lights and the streets would not be tarred. I am stating quite plainly that these loans made available to the town councils by the Central Government cover all these services. But they also cover the cost of building the houses. The rentals of the houses are also taken into account here. In this respect, an amount is included which covers all the maintenance and administrative costs in respect of the houses. It therefore does not cost the town councils a farthing to provide these sub-economic housing schemes for the various race groups. What is the position with regard to the loan funds for the economic group of houses erected by the Department of Community Development at the current interest rate of 6¾ per cent? They are made available to the local authorities at precisely the same rate of interest. What more do we find? In spite of all these extremely favourable loan conditions under which the Central Government makes these funds available to the town councils, we find that many town councils—and I think the town councils mentioned by the hon. member for Karoo are probably among these—do not make use of these facilities. That is where the trouble lies. And then the hon. member comes here this afternoon and makes a great fuss and places the blame on the hon. the Minister and the Government, quite undeservedly. What is the position? As at 15th January, 1968, an amount of approximately R15 million of the total amount provided in respect of housing for the current financial year had not yet been taken up by the town councils. That alone to my mind, provides overwhelming proof of the fact that this Government has not neglected its task, and that it has done its duty in making available sufficient funds throughout the years for housing, and is still doing so. This motion of the hon. member was introduced here this afternoon with the sole object of trying to sow suspicion against the Government. But another matter which the hon. member overlooks is that these funds which are made available for housing are sufficient for all possible development in new areas where re-settlement of Whites, Indians and Coloureds must be undertaken. The Community Development Board makes ample funds available for this. But funds are not made available for housing only. And that is what the hon. member forgot. The Community Development Board also makes large sums available for the erection of business premises, which are then leased at very reasonable rentals to Coloured and Indian businessmen. I just want to mention one example in Johannesburg, namely the Asiatic Business Centre in Fordsburg. There the Community Development Board is going to provide millions of rands to the Johannesburg City Council for the erection of these Indian shops. The same applies to the Coloureds. The hon. member ought to know—again, if he has done his homework—that the Coloured Development Corporation makes ample funds available, not only for the erection of business premises and Coloured business complexes, but also for the training of businessmen. The best part of all is that the Coloureds do not have to pay a farthing for all these amenities and services which the Central Government makes available in the municipal areas—and I emphasize in the municipal areas, not only in the Cape, but throughout South Africa and in the rural districts as well. There is another important aspect which the hon. member overlooks, and that is that whereas these Coloureds previously lived in slum conditions and in very poor houses, the municipal valuations of which were often very low and the revenue from rates therefore not very large, these same people are now being provided with better houses, with a resultant increase in the rates valuations. The result is that the town councils derive greater benefit from these rates. We know as I have said, that the hon. member is opposed to all group areas. But I think that even those town councils that are controlled by the supporters of the Party to which he belongs, will not support him in the agitation which he has initiated here this afternoon. It has been proved in numerous instances throughout the country that where non-Whites lived along with Whites in areas that had been proclaimed white, and where families sometimes lived in over-crowded conditions the value of the land decreased. As a result people found the environs unattractive, and the revenue collected from property rates was correspondingly low. But after the resettlement of the non-Whites the value of the properties suddenly increased as a result of the clearance of the slum conditions. I want to conclude by saying that the hon. member ought to withdraw his motion after having heard the facts—and I think that the hon. the Minister of Community Development will also deal with him—and should rather support the amendment I have proposed, in which thanks and appreciation are expressed to the Government because it is doing such a great deal to provide funds and means for implementing separate development. I therefore move this amendment.

It is not worth the trouble.

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the hon. member for Turffontein and I must say that I am rather disappointed in him because as far as I am concerned his contribution here this afternoon was a personal tirade against the hon. member for Karoo. He of course thanked the Government and then recited a whole list of figures which to me seemed almost meaningless. I want to say that the hon. member for Karoo, I believe, has brought a motion before the House which deserves the very earnest attention of everyone in this House and the Government. The hon. member for Turffontein should know—after all he represents an area in Johannesburg comprised of people who are taxpayers to the City Council of Johannesburg—and should realize that there is great concern to-day at the growth of the rates in almost every local authority in the country because of the efforts to implement the Government’s policy of separate development. We have had some very wild statements made in this House and believe me, particularly the local authorities in this country are very concerned when they listen to such statements. For instance, when the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration spoke in the no-confidence debate recently, he assured the House that the Government’s policy of separate development would be implemented regardless of any financial consideration. Unfortunately the hon. the Minister was unable or possibly unwilling to indicate to this House what he thought the financial implications would be, or in other words, exactly what it would cost this country to carry out successfully the Government’s policy of separate development. It is of course very easy to understand the extreme reluctance of the hon. the Minister to be drawn into a full scale debate where the financial implications of implementing separate development could be properly probed. I believe that he knows as we do that were the people of South Africa and particularly the electorate of South Africa faced with the true implications of implementing separate development, believe me, they would have second thoughts on the whole scheme. As the motion before the House by the hon. member for Karoo is intended to deal specifically with the very many difficulties facing local authorities who, after all, are obliged to implement the Government’s policy of separate development, I shall obviously confine myself to this particular aspect.

We know that it is the local authority in any given area who is saddled with the very difficult and onerous task of implementing the Government’s policy of separate development. We know, too, that every local authority sooner or later, be it large or small, is going to be faced with very serious financial problems if they are to implement this policy adequately, because we must remember that we are not dealing to-day with an urban Bantu population of completely unsophisticated, uneducated and simple labourers. We are to-day dealing with the second, in many cases the third, generation of persons who have known no other home than the larger towns and cities, who have spent their entire working life in full-time employment and who are of course to-day completely integrated into the urban way of life. Needless to say, these persons are clamouring for increased rights and opportunities. One must be realistic and accept the fact that more and better amenities will have to be provided for them at greatly increased costs. And so, Sir, I would say that the motion before the House requesting the Government to consider a commission of inquiry to investigate the ability of local authorities to finance the implementation of separate development, is a very timely one and one which deserves the very urgent attention of the Government. If we take as an example the city of Johannesburg and examine its Bantu revenue account, figures will show that in the last 13 years the rates fund of this city has contributed more than R7,000,000 to make good deficits on Bantu revenue account. I know that in some quarters the feeling exists that Bantu revenue accounts should be self-balancing by limiting the services and amenities provided to those for which the Bantu can afford to pay. But surely, in this day and age we must accept the fact that until such time that Bantu wages become truly economic, we shall have to find the money to subsidize these very important services.

I am certain too, Mr. Speaker, that many local authorities are concerned and very uneasy about the extent to which the financing of the Bantu revenue account has become dependent on the sale of liquor. Quite apart from the moral issues involved, there is always the danger that this sort of income can fluctuate for many reasons. We know for instance that beer halls could be boycotted. We know that the drinking habits of the Bantu can change. The extent of this dependence on revenue from Bantu beer becomes obvious when we examine the figures for Johannesburg again. The profits from Bantu beer have grown from just over R14,000 in 1938 to more than R2½ million in 1966, with a total profit of just under R22 million for the same period. It is indeed very difficult to visualize how the development of housing, the provision of services and amenities could have been provided in many areas were it not for this very high margin of profit shown on Bantu beer.

There is evidence, too, that the Bantu is fast acquiring a taste for European liquor, because, if we examine sales figures for European liquor in the Johannesburg area, we find that this has increased from just over R1 million in 1963 to just under R3 million in 1966. This is during a period of three years. Obviously the trend could have very serious implications for local authorities because of the very much smaller margin of profit shown on European liquor. For example, we find that of the total revenue from European liquor of R7 million for the period 1963 to 1966 in the Johannesburg area the profit was only R842,000. I believe quite sincerely that the Government should go into the whole question and go into the question very quickly as to whether it is in fact desirable that local authorities should rely to such an extent on the sale of liquor to finance their Bantu revenue account.

Dr. Holloway in his very interesting book dealing with apartheid, which of course now is called separate development, says—

I must say, Mr. Speaker, how terribly right he was, because there is no doubt that the Government’s policy of separate development is creating very serious financial problems for local authorities. [Interjections.] Now you see, Sir, the Government is taking it for granted that the local authorities will take care of these financial problems if and when they arise while carrying out the Government’s policy of separate development.

Let us look at the mass of legislation passed which affects non-European affairs administration. We find for instance that from 1945 to 1966 no fewer than 96 Acts have been passed, and every one is related directly or indirectly to the Government’s policy of separate development. A glance at the personnel increase of any large local authority will show that its non-European affairs department is expanding all the time at very great cost. This is in order to cope with this growing mass of legislation.

Quite apart from the costs involved, the larger local authorities are finding it extremely difficult to recruit the specialized personnel required to deal with the various regulations which are framed under these particular Acts. It would appear too, that while the Government expects full co-operation from local authorities when it comes to implementing this policy of separate development, the Government in many cases places obstacles in the way of the same local authorities. After all, these people are trying to present a better picture of their Bantu revenue account. I think an example of this is land values. We find for instance, that the 11 acres of ground in Johannesburg on which Wemmes Hostel is built, carries a municipal valuation of R40,000 per acre. But, if it were not for the Government restriction limiting this particular land, to the use for hostel purposes, this very same land could be valued as high as R160,000—that is four times as much—per acre, because adjoining ground in this area has been sold at this particular figure. This is only one example, although I am certain that I could cite many more if I wanted to. One gets the impression that, when it comes to the responsibility of supplying housing, the local authority, unlike my friend from Turffontein said, financially invariably comes off second best. This comment by Mr. Patrick Lewis, the Chairman of the Johannesburg City Council’s non-European Affairs Committee, I believe emphasizes this point. He says—

This, of course, might seem a very small amount, but to the Bantu, believe me, it is a very big one. He goes on to say:

He ends off by saying:

We have of course all heard of the great determination of the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education to halt the flow of Africans to the urban areas, but I notice that the hon. the Deputy Minister is not staking his political reputation so often these days. He is becoming far more elastic in estimating the year when he hopes to see his pipedream become a reality.

When we look at the cold hard figures we, of course, immediately understand why nobody takes the hon. the Deputy Minister very seriously, because we find that between 1904 and 1960 the actual number of Bantu in the urban areas of South Africa increased from 361,000 to 3½ million. This means that the Bantu in the urban areas increased approximately ten times. In other words, at the annual rate of 4.1 per cent. What is more significant, is the fact that absolutely no evidence has been provided in this House to show that this particular figure could be reduced. I believe that we should be realistic and accept the fact that the urban Bantu is with us to stay and that the financial problems facing local authorities will grow and that sooner or later every local authority in South Africa will be faced with the problem of finding the extra finance required for implementing the Government’s policy of separate development.

The hon. member for Karoo suggested in a newspaper article that the terms of reference of the Borckenhagen Commission could be extended to include this investigation. But after the sorry tale we heard the other day about the length of time taken by commissions to come to conclusions, I can never accept this, because I believe this particular matter is far too urgent and requires the urgent attention of the Government.

I have touched on just a few of the financial problems facing local authorities who, after all, in good faith are implementing the Government’s policy of separate development. The hon. member for Karoo has highlighted many others particularly affecting the smaller towns. I can only say that if the Government’s policy is really separate development at any costs, it is only fair that they should find ways and means to assist the local authorities to find the necessary funds which will be needed in ever greater measure to implement this policy of separate development.

In conclusion I want to congratulate the hon. member for Karoo on bringing this timely motion before the House and I am certain that every local authority, be it large or small, will welcome the appointment of such a commission.

Mr. Speaker, I shall come back presently to the speech made by the hon. member for Johannesburg (North). If one considers this motion in all honesty and if one reads it carefully, one cannot avoid coming to the conclusion, if one accepts that this motion is sincerely meant, that the United Party must in its heart of hearts support this policy of separate development. After the pathetic whining of the hon. member for Karoo one gains quite a different impression of this motion. I do not want to argue about the conditions to which the hon. member referred, because I am not acquainted with them. But the United Party left us an inheritance of conditions which had developed over centuries without their having done anything about them. That hon. member told us of those conditions. We have been in power for the past 20 years only. We inherited those conditions from them. Why did he not tell us what the United Party had done in order to rectify that inheritance which we now have? Now they want us to rectify it within the space of a few years. The other day the hon. the Leader of the Opposition objected to the cost of developing the homelands. But then that hon. member comes along and wants the National Party to rectify matters within the space of a few years. If this motion had asked for steps to be taken against certain city councils or local authorities, I would have been able to understand it. I found it difficult to believe my own ears while the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) was delivering his speech. That hon. member served on that city council himself. He said here to-day that the Government was placing obstacles in the way of the Johannesburg City Council. What was the reason for the establishment of the Resettlement Board in Johannesburg? The reason was that that United Party City Council of Johannesburg was always placing obstacles in the way of the implementation of the policy of the Government. That is what happened. The hon. member said the white ratepayers had to bear a cost of R7 million, but he did not tell us why. That hon. member must listen carefully now. I am not referring to the officials when talking of this city council. I am referring to the members of the city council, the executive committee and the United Party members as a whole, namely those who manage the city. In Soweto they have a tremendous shortage, but that is because they are too inefficient to do their work. They have so much money outstanding. They simply do not collect it. They simply take no action. That is what the position is and then we poor ratepayers, of whom I am one, have to pay for it. We have to pay for the fact that they are too inefficient to do their work. We have to pay for the fact that they are obstructing the Government.

Yet the people return us.

Mr. Speaker, they return them, but their numbers are dwindling rapidly. It is not a question that it cannot be done in Johannesburg. We have the Resettlement Board showing a profit in the case of Meadowlands and Diepkloof. These places are in the same city. If they should transfer those places to the City Council of Johannesburg today, they would represent an asset of R5 million. Why can they not do their share? Sharpe-ville also shows a profit. Pretoria also shows a profit. It can be done. But with all the assistance they receive in Johannesburg—the Government subsidises Bantu transport to the extent of R11 million, for example, and there are the profits made on beer—it still cannot be done. But they are the people who cannot do it, and that is why the Government has to step in and help them to do these things. We are talking of the local bodies which are too inefficient. That may be so, and the hon. member for Karoo referred to it, but I do not know.

But coming back to Johannesburg and referring to the obstacles mentioned by the hon. member, I want to say that the Resettlement Board moved 10,369 families in the case of Sophiatown, Martindale and Newclare. Why was it not done by the Johannesburg City Council? They did not want to do it. It is because their policy is against doing it and against carrying out the policy of the Government of the country. The Resettlement Board has to operate in Johannesburg because it has to do the work which the City Council cannot do. At the moment the Resettlement Board is also undertaking removal schemes in the case of Alexandra, Resiesbaan and Kliprivier. They have moved 10,000 families to date. That is a total of more than 53,000 persons. It can be done. The Durban City Council moved Cato Manor. There were 81,000 people in Cato Manor. In Port Elizabeth. Korsten with 51,000 people was moved. It can be done, but in a place such as Johannesburg, about which the hon. member sounded off to-day, the Government has to do it. There we have to implement the policy of separate development ourselves, otherwise it will not be done properly.

Let us take for example a place such as Pretoria in discussing the implementation of the policy of separate development. In the nine years from 1951 to 1960 the Bantu population increased from 122,000 to 200,000, that is to say, an increase of 78,000 over a period of nine years.

In a white area?

Yes. It is a disgrace, but that is what we inherited from you. I now want to show what the position is, and I hope it will penetrate that hon. member’s mind. What has happened since we have been running affairs? In the same period the white population increased from 151,000 to 207,000, that is to say, an increase of 56,000. Now the hon. member must realize that this is a ratio of 1½ Bantu to one White. But in the seven years from 1960 to 1967 the Bantu population increased from 200,000 to 205,000, that is to say an increase of 5,000 in seven years. Pretoria has not stood still. The white population increased from 207,000 to 253,000, an increase of 46,000. Therefore the hon. member can see that the ratio is now nine Whites to one Bantu. There is the factual proof. The hon. member said to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration that he was wrong in making those assertions. Pretoria has shown that it has succeeded in stopping that influx. If he cannot understand it, that ratio of nine to one will make it clear to him.

In the motion mention is also made of funds both inside and outside the areas of local authorities. These things can be done. I have mentioned a few figures. Every city council can do these things because those funds are available. But the Government is also doing its share over and above that. Let us look at what is happening in the homelands where separate development has been implemented. Since 1960 105 townships have been approved and planned. A further 26 have been approved and are being planned at the moment. A total of 54,647 houses has been built. If we take six persons per house as an average, it gives us a total of 370,000 persons for whom housing has been provided. But that is only in respect of separate development. If the Government had not done this, where would the people have been? They would have been in the white areas, as the United Party wants them to be. No, this motion is quite out of place. If you consider all these developments, then I think that one of the greatest achievements of this Government is in fact the way in which it has succeeded in fitting into its own scientific, industrial, agricultural and political pattern the eight Bantu nations whose members were still warriors, tillers of the soil and breeders of cattle 50 years ago. But what is even more remarkable is that the members of all those eight Bantu ethnic groups have received and retained their share without losing their individual dignity or having it affected. It has also been done without interfering with their language and those valuable traditional customs which they have practised in their homelands for ages. All those things have been retained. It is according to this pattern that the Government carries out its policy of separate development. It is carried out in the interest of all and to the benefit of all.

I want to conclude by expressing this thought to hon. members opposite. If we consider the peaceful constitutional development of the Transkei which has taken place in the past years so that they have almost achieved full self-government to-day, one would expect, if all there things are taken into account in all sincerity, that the motion introduced by the hon. member would have been a genuine contribution. I had thought that that was the sincere intention and that they were becoming truly national in spirit. But I was disappointed by the reaction and by the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) in that he did not tell us more about the true state of affairs in Johannesburg so that we might all know what it was.

Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure that in the dim recesses of the mind, if we can find such a thing behind the speech which we have just heard, there is some connection between the motion which was moved by the hon. member for Karoo and the arguments which the hon. member for Mayfair has just put forward. I am sure that if one searched far enough one could find that clear link. Unfortunately I do not have the time to go back the 100 years which the hon. member for Mayfair has delved into in order to seek the problems with which he has dealt.

He said that they have only had 20 years in which to clear up a 100 years of mess. He is quite wrong because 300 years have passed in which white people have lived in South Africa. Not even his own figures are valid. Like so many of the arguments which one hears, he omitted to mention previous periods of Nationalist government. But what has 100 years of history got to do with the problem which the local authorities of South Africa face with regard to the carrying out of Government policy? That is the simple issue before this House. Mr. Speaker, if you had listened to the hon. member for Turffontein, particularly when he was referring to the Coloured people, I think you would be able to say with the poet: “A Book of Verse, a Flask of Wine—and Thou Beside me singing in the Wilderness—and Wilderness were Paradise enow.” With a few words he turned the wilderness into paradise.

I think it will be more appropiate if you quoted “… and having writ, moves on” because the writing is on the wall.

Not even the hon. the Minister of Transport’s tears could wash away a word of the record of the Government to which he had tied himself for the last 20 years. He could not wipe out a line nor wash away a word. But I want to bring the debate back to the issue before the House, which is the problem of local authorities. We have heard here of the housing and the services which have been provided. That is not the issue before the House. [Interjection.] No, the motion of the hon. member for Karoo deals with the implementation of Government policy. If the Minister of Community Development says that that refers to housing only—is that what he means?

No, I said that was what the hon. member for Karoo said.

It was not what he said. Let us get this clear. Does the Government visualize the policy of separate development as the mere provision of houses?

Of course not.

That is the point which not a single speaker opposite has even attempted to deal with. They have talked about housing and services. When you establish a community, do you simply build a house and put in a tap and say: There you are, you have now got a settled community. But of course that is not so. What of the Government’s policy, a policy which Natal in fact is carrying out in regard to the Indian people, of local authorities for the non-white groups? What of that policy when it comes to those self-governing groups, the Bantu councils which are now in the process of being elected and the Indian and Coloured organizations? What happens to the concept of separate development and of self-government if you say to them: We will give you houses and facilities and that is the end of the road?

I will deal with a specific issue—the Indians in southern Durban. Here you have the South Durban Indian Advisory Committee where there is established a community of tens of thousands of Indian families. If it is to be a settled and secure community, it must have all the facilities which are required for a modern settlement of people. There must be the halls, the community centres, the sports-fields, the swimming baths, the libraries. There must be the public services which are necessary to create a settled, contented and therefore a secure community. [Interjection.] No, roads count as services. The Government can claim that they make provision for the services, but nowhere in their planning do they make provision for those other facilities which are required to create a proper community spirit. This is the duty of the hon. the Minister of Community Development. His task is to create communities and not simply to put up a lot of slum houses, or even decent houses, with water and sewerage, and say that that is the end of the road. If there is to be meaning to Government policy, there must be provision for these additional services, these social amenities. In the normal course these amenities come with time, but the Government has placed an accelerator on the time-table by its vast removal schemes. The acceleration of that time-table has placed local authorities in the position that they simply cannot finance the social amenities which are required by the newly settled communities.

That is part of the strain placed upon them. The Minister will say that he provides for roads. Yes, roads within the area. But what about the freeways that are necessary to take tens of thousands of workers into the city? The hon. the Minister of Transport smiles. He gives a piffling little subsidy to Durban of some R10 million and says they must find the rest of it. But the people of these new townships, Indian, Bantu and Coloured must get to work and therefore there must be transport facilities over and above the railway lines. The roads and the freeways must be provided, and again the burden is placed on the white taxpayer of the city, who must find the money every time. There has been the Borckenhagen Commission. Why cannot we have the recommendations of that commission? It has reported. Why cannot we have the views of the Government’s own commission on the problems in regard to the finances of local authorities; this is closely tied up with this problem of providing the facilities which the cities and the smaller towns to an even greater extent have to meet.

But apart from Durban itself, when you get to the peri-urban areas of Durban, you get utter chaos. There is a Bantu township established at Klaarwater. A few years ago the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration came to open this township and he told the Bantu: Here is your new home; here is where your children and your grandchildren will grow up; this is your future. And where is it now? It has been declared an Indian group area, and not only the children and the grandchildren but the parents themselves have got to move to another centre, so as to fit in with the Government’s policy; this so-called traditional and historic policy of the Government is what is costing the local authorities money. Claremont, in the Pinetown district, has been waiting for 18 years to be declared as a group area. There are some 300 single Bantu living in hutments there, with pit latrines and nothing else, because the Government cannot even make up its mind. These are the things which create the delays and add to the problems and the heartbreak of the local authority which is trying to provide housing and facilities for its own people. And then, when we come with a motion asking the Government to help the local authorities, we get a “mbongo” amendment thanking the Minister for what he has done. Dankie, baas. We go back 100 years into history, but we do not get the answer to the problems of the local authorities of to-day, who are facing the problems placed upon them by Government policy. I could go on making point after point, like the loss to local authorities of land bought by this Minister’s Department for future development, which often lies there for years before it can be developed, while the municipality gets not a cent in rates all the time that land lies idle. It has been bought for future planning and the city council in the meantime loses all the potential rates whilst it is waiting for development. These are small matters which accumulate to add to the problems which every local authority has to face.

So I hope that the hon. the Minister, when he replies, will take a more responsible approach than the two hon. members who tried to draw a red herring across the debate, who tried to draw attention away from the issue and who proudly proclaim, like the hon. member for Turffontein, that a town which has 1,800 Whites, some 5,000 Coloureds and 4,000 Bantu, is a white town; is that carrying out the Government’s policy of making South Africa white? The hon. member for Mayfair is proud that the Government’s policy is making South Africa white, so white that not a single city or town in South Africa has a white majority in it; that the number of non-Whites and Bantu in the white areas is greater than it has ever been before. This Minister in this House pleaded the other day for a stop to the flow of the Coloured people into the cities because it was overwhelming the facilities for housing. But in his dream world the hon. member for Mayfair closes his eyes to the fact and says their policy is making South Africa white.

I want to continue with the remarks which have been addressed to you, Sir, by the hon. members preceding me on this side of the House and to deal specifically with certain problems which exist in so far as the Cape Province generally and the Cape Peninsula in particular are concerned. We have been entertained with certain ill-informed and rather generalized remarks by the hon. member for Lydenburg in this House regarding the situation which obtains in the Peninsula, particularly in relation to separate amenities. I want to tell the Minister that much of which I wish to comment on this afternoon was enacted in the time of his predecessors and not during his time of office, and I want to say immediately that we on this side of the House wish to compliment him on the recent decision to give back certain authority to the Cape Provincial Administration to try to sort out these difficulties. I want to remind the Minister that in 1958 the Cape Provincial Administration appointed a commission, which was known as the Starke Commission, to deal with the question of amenities in the Cape Peninsula. That commission, unlike other commissions, reported in less than 12 months. It reported in September, 1959, and its report dealt in detail with every aspect of amenities for the Cape Peninsula in the municipal areas of Wynberg, Simons-town and Cape Town. It gave recommendations as to what should be done, and those recommendations were based on and directed towards very sound objectives. The first objective of that commission was to ensure the provision of adequate recreational and other amenities, for all groups; secondly, to allocate the use and enjoyment of natural amenities on a fair basis, and thirdly, to share on an equitable basis such amenities as cannot be duplicated nor divided. These were for the municipal area.

This commission then continued. It was a commission appointed by the Nationalist Administration and it dealt with all aspects of the recreational facilities and amenities of the Peninsula. But what happened? The provincial authorities then found themselves having to sit and wait until the Government made up its mind as to how it was going to apply the Group Areas Act. In the intervening period the province went ahead. It decided that the areas for amenities should be determined along the whole of the coast line of the province. The Heunis Commission was appointed and worked for many months and it made recommendations as to how these amenities should be provided. What was the result of this? Because one member of the Cabinet felt a little aggrieved about some of the recommendations, there was suddenly appointed the Torlage Commission. One does not have to say much more than that the Government has at this stage decided to hand the whole matter back to the Provincial Administration. That is sufficient condemnation of the results of the Torlage Commission.

Now we get to the problem of attempting to implement at local authority level the provision of these amenities which are required by law. One must accept that the local authorities at provincial and municipal level are bound to implement the law of the Government. But it must implement it when the Government has itself discharged its side of the bargain and that is to make up its mind as to how it is going to apply the Group Areas Act. There are vast areas within the Cape Peninsula in respect of which the Government has not yet made up its mind. But despite that, without the financial assistance which would justify me to thank the Minister or the Government for support— there has been an attempt by the municipality, with not unimportant results, to provide these amenities. Sir, for the information of the hon. member for Lydenburg and others who think like him. I would like, Sir, to give you certain facts this afternoon. I will condense the figures into one or two which will be sufficient for the purposes of my argument. During the period 1959 to 1963 the total expenditure ex rates within the Municipality of Cape Town increased by 30 per cent. There was an increase of 30 per cent in over-all expenditure. In that same period the expenditure on amenities, including housing financed by the council—not financed by the National Housing Commission—increased by 42 per cent. The figure in 1959 was R1,222,374, and by 1963 the figure was R1,729,412, an increase of 42 per cent. But it was found that even that increase was not sufficient to deal with the various problems of housing and amenities which had to be dealt with because of the policy which has been determined by the Government. Take the period 1964 to 1968. Whereas the over-all expenditure of the municipality increased by 31 per cent ex rates account, the expenditure on amenities increased by 73 per cent. The expenditure in 1964 was R1.997,305 and the expenditure for the current financial year is R3,484,664. Sir, that is what is being done by the council. But, Sir, it has not been able to deal with the problem effectively.

This expenditure is having a very great impact upon the possible rating of the City. But because of removals which are taking place under Government policy of groups from one area to another and because of the necessity, as we all feel, to provide amenities, the City Council is being burdened with this expenditure without any assistance from the State. Sir, let me refer back to one item. It was recommended 10 years ago that the council should develop Strandfontein as a Coloured seaside resort and at the same time it was recommended that the S.A. Railways and Harbours should build a railway line to Strandfontein and Ndabeni beach for the Blacks. Strandfontein has been erected out of moneys of the ratepayers of Cape Town, but we are still waiting for the railway line connection; we are still waiting for the Railways to make that amenity really usuable by the people for whom it was erected. The City Council gets blamed because the Bantu and the Coloureds go down to Muizenberg or to some other place where there is public transport and because they do not go to some place to which there is an occasional bus and to which the railway line, which the Government has been asked to build, has not been built. The blame for any failure to control a resort such as Muizenberg must be attached to this Government and not to the City Council of Cape Town.

Sir, I want to mention one other matter just briefly. I have noticed that the hon. the Minister has recently given voice to certain ideas about an increase in the density of buildings in residential areas. I believe he made particular reference to the Green and Sea Point area where he felt, if he was reported correctly, that there could be increased buildings to accommodate a greater population density. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that it is an admirable idea to have a greater population density in an area such as that which is near to the City, but it brings in its wake the question of amenities for the white people who will be living in Sea Point. Sir, their amenities are not going to be found only on the promenade, on the seafront and on the beaches. If this type of construction envisaged by the Government is to be encouraged by the Government, then the ratepayers of Cape Town cannot possibly afford the cost of expropriating the ground which will be necessary for playing fields for the children in that area. We do not want to have created in that area a complete concrete jungle in which there is no park area and in which there are no playing fields. That responsibility is one which cannot be borne out of the revenue derived from ratepayers.

I want to conclude by saying this in supporting the motion of the hon. member for Karoo. I feel that the tackling of this task of dove-tailing the financial responsibility of the State with the financial responsibility of the local authorities is long overdue, and when the hon. member for Turffontein gets up here and seeks to suggest, as he did here this afternoon, that this is an occasion for thanks, I would ask him to find the time to attend the next conference of the United Municipal Executive of the Cape Province. I would like him to hear people such as the former mayor of East London, Mr. de Lange, the mayor of Cradock and the mayor of Adelaide when they talk about the problems that they are faced with. I have had the privilege of attending some of these congresses, and if the hon. member for Turffontein would do so, he would certainly not come here with an expression of thanks to the Minister but with the request that something be done in terms of the motion moved by the hon. member for Karoo.

Right at the beginning I want to say that I am not blind to the problems with which many local authorities are saddled. Just as local authorities have problems which they have to surmount, the provinces have problems and so has the State. None of us are without problems. But without fear of contradiction I want to make this statement here, namely that during the time I have been responsible for the Department of Community Development it has been my experience that most of the problems experienced by local authorities are problems they are experiencing because they have not acquainted themselves properly with the facilities which are being placed at their disposal. When I reply to several of the arguments raised here, hon. members will see why I am making this statement.

Secondly I want to say in general that it is entirely unnecessary to ask for a commission of inquiry to investigate the financial ability of local authorities to carry out their task in respect of the settlement of various population groups in accordance with Government policy. That is quite unnecessary as the Borcken-hagen Commission did in fact pay attention to this matter and did investigate it. The Borcken-hagen Commission made recommendations in that regard. Those recommendations are being studied by the Government and will be made available to Parliament in due course. It is a matter which is being handled by the hon. the Minister of Finance. I want to make it clear that the Borckenhagen Commission certainly did pay attention to the matter, just as it paid attention to all matters relating to the financial relations among the State, the provinces and the local authorities. At this stage an inquiry by a commission would simply be a repetition of an inquiry which has already taken place. I do not wish to deal with that matter any further.

I would rather try to remove some of the misconceptions under which hon. members of the Opposition are apparently labouring. Let me say at once that the vast majority of the arguments they used here, are either removed from the truth or based on absolute misunderstandings. I want to mention a few. In the first place, several hon. members made reference here to the fact that the responsibility of a local authority or of the State did not end when streets, lights, water and houses had been provided. I agree wholeheartedly with that. It is essential that one should provide every community with the necessary communal facilities which may turn it into a full-fledged community. But in this regard there are two arguments hon. members are losing sight of. Firstly, if we had never had group areas in South Africa, if separate residential areas had never been allotted, then those very same people would have been in the urban areas and then all those facilities would have had to be provided and then it would after all, have been the task of the local authority to provide them. Those facilities would then have had to be provided in the central part of the cities. One would then have had mixed residential areas and one would have had to provide adequate facilities in the central part of the city, in the expensive parts, for catering to both Whites and non-Whites. But hon. members of the Opposition are accepting along with us the principle of separate residential areas.

Of course.

The hon. member says “of course”. If separate residential areas are accepted by them, then, surely, they are accepting along with us that there should be separate schools, separate swimming baths, separate sports facilities and separate communal facilities. In that case, what are we arguing about the whole afternoon? If it is purely about the question of whether the local authorities can provide those facilities, then this is what I say: If all of us accept that there should be separate residential areas and that those facilities should be there in any case, then it is and remains in the first instance the responsibility of the local authority in the municipal area of which those people are resident. Let me for argument’s sake take the Coloureds as an example. If the Coloured community of a particular municipal area is economically unable to afford those facilities for itself, then it is economically unable to do so because its revenue is too low. But, after all, one finds that the position in regard to the lower income white communities is the same. The Whites who are living, let us say, in Ep-ping Garden Village cannot pay the same rates and taxes as are paid by the residents of Rondebosch. Is that then a reason why the Government should step in and provide the necessary facilities for the people of Epping Garden Village? Surely, it is the municipality which has to care for its entire community.

Mr. Speaker, even the real facts are not being taken into account by hon. members opposite, because the hon. member for Karoo says that when a residential area is being developed for the non-Whites, be they Coloureds or Bantu, particularly in the rural areas—he mentioned Colesberg where the Coloureds have now been settled in a beautiful new township—then the majority of those inhabitants falls into the sub-economic group, but he says that it is only the houses that are being financed sub-economically by the Government, that the services are being financed on an economic basis. If that is the case, then that municipality’s application to the Department was lodged incorrectly, because the policy is that in cases where a new residential area is being developed in accordance with Government policy, be it for Whites or non-Whites, that area as a whole is financed by the Department of Community Development, through the National Housing Commission. The liaison services for providing in that area roads, electricity and water together with the reticulation thereof within the residential area, are calculated jointly as one whole unit. If three-quarters of the residents of that area belongs to the sub-economic group, then three-quarters of the costs entailed in the provision of all those facilities can be provided by the National Housing Commission at sub-economic tariffs.

And if they are situated outside the area of the local authority?

That area can simply be incorporated into the municipal area. It is the easiest thing in the world to do so. In other words, when provision is made for sub-economic houses, the services involved are also financed on a sub-economic basis.

Not the social services.

I am talking about the essential services. I want to make this point because the hon. member for Karoo is apparently not aware of it, otherwise he would not have made that statement. If there are municipalities which have not received those benefits, then it means that they lodged their application wrongly with the Department. That is as a result of their ignorance. They should instead ascertain beforehand from the Department what facilities they can have. My Department helps them as far as it can possibly do so.

Then we come to the supplementary services to which I referred a moment ago and which must be provided in any case, such as schools for instance. It is the Government’s policy to provide the schools in new residential areas. Halls, sports facilities, communal facilities, all those facilities for the non-Whites are being subsidized by the State on a rand for rand basis, just as in the case of the Whites.

Only sub-economic …

No. To mention an example: where a registered sports body does exist, it may apply for aid in regard to the provision of facilities required for practising its branch of sport—for instance, to the Department of Coloured Affairs if they are Coloureds—on a rand for rand basis.

But not the local authority.

No. of course not. The local authority has its responsibility towards its people. I said so a moment ago. The local authority has its responsibility towards all of the residents of its area.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) referred to the loss of revenue suffered by municipalities because my Department, the Department of Community Development, was purchasing large tracts of land and not paying rates and taxes on those properties. In addition there was supposed to be long delays before those sites were developed so that the municipality might derive revenue from them. Let me state frankly that as far as the hon. member’s reference to Durban is concerned, I want to lay the responsibility for the losses Durban has been bearing for a long time squarely at the door of the Municipality of Durban. This municipality is in exactly the same position in respect of properties it owns itself as it is in respect of properties owned by the Department of Community Development through the Community Development Board. Rates and taxes are not paid on municipal properties, just as they are not paid on Community Development Board properties either.

In the Cato Manor area the city council owns two-thirds of the area and the Board only one-third. Those areas are not being developed rapidly enough, as the municipality refuses to co-operate in order to provide the necessary services there. As regards the re-planning of important areas such as Riverside, Prospect Hall and Cato Manor, the Durban Municipality does not want the State itself to provide all the services and to pay for them in full—in spite of the fact that the municipality itself owns a large proportion of those sites. We have been struggling for a long time to come to an agreement. After all, the Municipality of Durban with its engineers and other employees is in the first place the body which is supposed to provide those services. The State will help it in that respect. The State will always be prepared to grant the necessary financial aid as far as it is at all possible. If the municipality would only agree to it, that area could be developed. But the Municipality of Durban does not want it to be said that it co-operates in implementing the policy of apartheid. That is why it does not want to co-operate in those areas and that is why it has marked out an area of lesser importance and now wants me to authorize it to expropriate and renew that area, because now it wants to tackle that area with might and main. I say that it is unfair to lay the reason for the delay at the door of the State when the municipality itself is responsible for it.

The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) really astonished me. Apparently the Johannesburg City Council has got out of hand since he left! After what the hon. member said here to-day about the inability of the local authorities to meet their obligations, it will probably astonish hon. members to hear that a few days ago, Tuesday morning to be exact, it was the representative of Johannesburg, in the person of Mr. Oberholzer, who said that it was unnecessary to look for any other formula for the provision of facilities, because adequate facilities did exist, facilities with which the municipality was quite satisfied. That is why I cannot understand why the hon. member said what he did say. Perhaps he has been out of the City Council for too long; perhaps he should rather have stayed there.

The hon. member also referred to the burden that had been placed on the local authorities and the Bantu, because shortly after 1948 the Government had stopped sub-economic schemes for the Bantu and replaced them by economic schemes. The hon. member referred to Mr. Lewis’ quotation—that was what it was about. In this regard it is very clear that we are taking the view that the Bantu who are living in their own residential areas in white urban areas, may do so because they are rendering service to that white community and its people. The Government says it is wrong for my voters in Newcastle, or for the voters of the hon. member for Pinetown, to have to pay for the cheap dwellings for Bantu servants whom the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) is keeping in Johannesburg. That is why it is not the task of the State to pay for subsidies for the housing of Bantu who are temporarily rendering service in white urban areas. They must be housed on an economic basis. In actual fact there are no problems in this regard. These schemes are self-sufficient, they can be self-sufficient. The hon. member for Mayfair pointed out that there were big municipalities whose Bantu revenue accounts balanced. If there are proper arrangements in that regard, the account can balance. There are even places which show large profits. There are big municipalities which came to me when Bantu Education was still in my charge and said that the funds in their Bantu revenue account had accumulated to such an extent that they wanted consent to use those funds for the construction of schools for the Bantu.

And swimming baths.

I do not even want to go into that matter any further. I really think it is unnecessary to devote any more time to that aspect.

Is the Minister suggesting that the Johannesburg City Council is being mismanaged?

I made the statement that there are big municipalities which do manage to balance their Bantu revenue accounts and even to show profits. If Johannesburg cannot manage to do so, then it is either because of particular circumstances or because of bad administration—either or both. I leave it to the hon. member to decide for himself.

The hon. member for Karoo made a long speech on the inability of local authorities. I have already replied to his speech in part. The fact remains that in the case of any scheme it is not only housing which is subsidized in full, but where alternative housing has to be provided, there has been included in the economic leasing or selling schemes items which make provision for the various costs, for rates and taxes as well. Where a site is purchased, the owner himself is of course responsible for the rates and taxes. As regards economic rented houses, the rates and taxes are included in the rent. As regards sub-economic houses, provision has also been made for the inclusion in the purchase price or rental of the costs involved in the provision of services in the sub-economic sphere. Local authorities need not suffer any loss on these schemes. They can cause the expenditure on these schemes to balance with their revenue. Simply look at the assets they are building up by those means. These schemes are repayable as follows: In the case of sub-economic schemes the rate of interest if ¾ per cent and the loan is repayable over a period of 40 years. After 40 years only 49 per cent of the economic amount plus interest that was spent by the State, will have been repaid. At that stage the scheme has been paid off and then it is the property of that local authority. In other words, the local authority receives a large scheme at half its cost over a period of 40 years. Then it is its property.

The other argument used by the hon. member for Karoo, was that the leasing of houses or the housing of Coloureds was deliberately arranged in such a way that they would not obtain municipal voting rights, and that in this way their say in the local governments was taken away from them. I do not wish to go into that matter now. In due course we shall be afforded the opportunity to talk about the political rights of the Coloureds. By means of the separate areas we are giving to the Coloureds as residential areas and the provision of consultative committees and later governing committees and eventually self-rule, we are in fact for the first time offering to them, wherever it is at all possible, effective control or co-partnership in regard to their own affairs and their own communities. This is being done for the entire community and not only for a few select ones or individuals in that community. We are going to afford the entire community that opportunity, and that is why I think it will eventually be a better basis. And then the hon. member also made a great fuss here about the removal of the Bantu from the Western Cape.

Particularly the rural areas.

The hon. member says particularly the rural areas. With great verbosity he wanted to know who would take those people’s place and, where residential areas had been developed for them, who would live in them and what would become of them. It should be borne in mind that this process is a slow one which will take place over a period of many years. It will only be possible to realize this when the Coloured community itself has shown such an increase in numbers that it will be able to take over the work, and when the industries and the white public will at the same time be in a position to manage with the aid of more modem methods and less labour. All those things are being introduced systematically, and to that extent the withdrawal of the Bantu is gradual, because one has also to make provision in the places they are being sent to. That is why this is not something which will happen overnight. Where new housing is being provided for the Bantu in Bantu residential areas, in the rural areas as well, it is the policy to do so in such a way that when they are eventually moved there, it will be possible to use those residential areas for the Coloureds. Some adjustment and the repair of houses may perhaps be necessary. It is foreseen that this may eventually happen. Therefore I do not think that the hon. member needs to be concerned about the fact that this will eventually place an unnecessary burden on the municipalities. And then the hon. member tried to point out that the local authorities were financially not in a position to carry out this task. As proof for that he mentioned the example of squatters who were building tin shanties for themselves on the common or along the roads or beneath trees near Colesberg and living there. But the hon. member knows just as well as I and every other member in this House, that in every community, in the white community as well, there is a certain percentage of people in respect of whom one simply cannot provide housing. We have also had this experience as far as the Whites are concerned. The best and most attractive sub-economic houses are built for them at a particularly low rate of rentals, but those people simply do not want to live within the community. They move out and using sheets of corrugated iron or whatever, they build for themselves another place to live in elsewhere. There are many such places on the outskirts of Pretoria. That is not so as a result of the fact that facilities cannot be created for those people. However, one will always find such a group of people whom one simply cannot settle within a community. One will find that everywhere. And to hold up the few squatters there are—and they are often colourful personalities—as proof to the effect that municipalities are not capable of housing those people, is really very far-fetched.

The municipalities are complaining themselves.

But look, the municipalities are complaining because there is an uncontrolled influx of Coloureds from the rural areas to the townships.

I am talking about the rural areas only.

That influx from the rural areas to the towns is a serious problem. As far as the Coloureds are concerned, it is a problem about which we cannot do much. We have in fact taken a step in that direction, namely by making it possible, through the agency of the Department of Agriculture with its agricultural credit schemes, for farmers to house their servants on their farms by means of aid they are granted by the State. In that way housing is being improved in the rural areas as well. At the moment the scheme is still being worked out, but it will be put into operation. I honestly think that it is not necessary for me to go into the finer details any further. To summarize I may just say that the entire matter of the financial ability of local authorities, has been investigated. The report will soon be available and members will have access to it. Secondly, not one of the examples that were quoted by hon. members is substantial enough to justify a special inquiry. In respect of all of them the necessary provision has already been made and the State, with the extensive aid it is granting to municipalities and local authorities, has made it possible for them to carry out their task properly.

In view of the fact that the hon. the Minister has given us the assurance that the aspects which were discussed here this afternoon have formed part of the terms of reference and the discussions of the Borckenhagen Commission, I withdraw the motion with the permission of the House.

Mr. Speaker, as is customary and with the leave of this House, I, on behalf of this side of the House, ask that my amendment be withdrawn.

With leave, amendment and motion withdrawn.